Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Crime (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]

Mr. Keith Darvill: It is a privilege to open this important debate. I represent an outer east London constituency, which forms part of the London borough of Havering. In Metropolitan police terms, it is part of K division. These introductory remarks are not a prelude to a speech about crime and policing in my constituency, but an introduction to one of the aspects of crime in London, which I want to address—the contrast between inner and outer-London boroughs. The other aspect with which I shall deal is the development of partnerships among the police, local authorities and other agencies, which I strongly support as they will deliver tremendous benefits, providing that their development is properly resourced.
I begin with a word about trends in crime. Statistics showing crime by borough have been few and unreliable, although the Metropolitan police has just produced comprehensive figures for the past two years. While those statistics can be criticised, an important political point is to be made, as recorded crime is 25 per cent. higher than 10 years ago and, 80 per cent. higher than 20 years ago.
In London, crimes of violence against the person in 1979 were 16,027, and in 1997 they were 53,721, an increase of 235 per cent. Sexual offences were 2,736 in 1979, and had increased to 7,708 by 1997, an increase of 182 per cent. Theft and handling were 316,505 in 1979, but had risen to 382,694 in 1997, an increase of 21 per cent.
Those figures underline the abysmal failure of the Conservative party when in government —a failure that was one of the many contributory factors to its defeat at the last general election. Notifiable offences recorded by the police show significant increases in crime in most London boroughs. Interestingly, some of the highest increases in such offences were in the outer-London boroughs. In Havering in 1980, there were 10,977 notifiable offences. In 1996, when the figures were at their peak, they had increased to 15,900. Last year showed a small decrease, to just below 15,000.

Ms Linda Perham: As my hon. Friend knows, I represent the neighbouring borough of Redbridge. Does he agree that the use of closed circuit television has certainly improved the crime rate in the outer-London boroughs? We introduced closed circuit television last year in Ilford town centre, since when the

crime rate has dropped by 18 per cent., and more than 300 criminals have been caught on camera. I am sure that he will agree that CCTV has been a great benefit, particularly to the outer-London boroughs.

Mr. Darvill: Of course I agree, and there are similar examples in my borough.
In recent years, the most worrying trend in crime statistics has been the increase in crimes of violence. Although the total number of notifiable offences recorded by the police fell by 5 per cent. in London as a whole, and there was the same percentage decrease in outer-London boroughs, crimes of violence increased more in Havering, for example, than in the capital as a whole. While robbery decreased in London by 7 per cent., it increased in Havering by 13 per cent. Sexual offences and violence against the person both increased by around a fifth.
Bearing in mind the particular factors that affect inner-London boroughs—I am thinking of Westminster and Camden—with the influence of tourism and commuters, the outer-London crime statistics give rise to even greater concern.
I do not want to take up the time of the House with too many statistics, which I give to counter the popular view that the outer-London areas do not need the resources and attention that the inner-London boroughs require. The concept of a crime-free leafy suburb is wrong. I know that, because of targeting, there is a tendency to shift resources from outer-London areas. I am opposed not to targeting, which can be effective in the fight against crime, but to the year-on-year shift of resources at a time when we should be tackling the worrying increase in crime.
The 1998–99 settlement for the Metropolitan police service provided a total spending power of £1.775 billion—an increase of 3.7 per cent. on the 1997–98 figures. However, the settlement proposed a 25.4 per cent. increase in the precept on council tax. My constituents would not object to such an increase, given that the increase on a band E property would be about £1.20 a month, if it were not for the fact that local police numbers are being reduced, and local police stations are under threat of closure. Indeed, in my borough, the police station at Collier row, which falls in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), is currently under threat—I know that my hon. Friend has taken up the matter with the Home Office.
I acknowledge the successes in crime reduction, and I congratulate Sir Paul Condon and all his officers on the recent reduction in the figures—the significant fall in the figures for burglary and car crime in the capital over many years is very encouraging. I also welcome the Government's proposals to set up a London police authority as part of the Greater London assembly, which will enable elected representatives to contribute directly to the management of the police service in London. That will provide not only new leadership, but long-awaited democratic accountability. I am sure that the inner/ outer-London debate can be advanced in that forum, although I would welcome the Minister's comments on it today.
My constituents—and, I am sure, the residents of all London boroughs—share the same fears and concerns about crime. The need to continue to attack crime and help crime prevention at all levels is paramount, and outer London should not be discriminated against in that.


I make no apology for raising the issue of working in partnership so soon after Third Reading of the Crime and Disorder Bill. I genuinely believe that the Bill's proposals will have a significant effect, provided that they do not mean that a local police plan will be prepared with the local authority only to be left on the shelf to gather dust. My view is that the public, through their councillors, neighbourhood watch representatives and other agencies, will warmly embrace the Bill's provisions, which will work as effectively as the partnerships in local schools between school governors, teachers and parents—all those to whom I have spoken warmly welcome the cross-agency co-operation.
I am concerned about the resources required to make those provisions work. I do not say that because I believe that this year's police settlement was poor—it was not. I am familiar with the Audit Commission performance indicators and with its report, which I read in preparation for this speech. The report rightly says that police resources do not reflect performance in matters such as crime prevention partnerships, in which forces, councils and community groups have worked together. On one key question, the report says:
each force must now face the challenge of building partnerships with social services, education and health services to prevent crime—especially juvenile crime—and to improve community safety, without letting performance slip in key areas. To do this, forces will need to squeeze every drop of value from their resources.
The report shows that performance varies, and that, in some areas, increased resources have not meant improved performance. Examples of best practice should be incorporated in all forces.
My chief concern is the resourcing of local authorities, which is a matter not for the Home Office but for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and for the Treasury. However, in considering crime in London and the role of partnerships, we must take account of all the partners. As the Audit Commission recognised by referring to education, social services and housing and planning, local authorities will be important partners.
Havering has suffered from particularly bad standard spending assessments. Year after year, cuts have been imposed and the borough has spent up to its capping level. If the SSA formula is not improved, the council—which is keen formally to start the co-operation partnership with the police and others—will be restricted, to say the least. Indeed, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), will be aware from his recent visit to my constituency that work on the cross-agency approach to tackling youth crime in the Harold Hill area has already begun.
If cuts in the SSA continue to be made, the borough council will find it difficult to continue its work; it will do what it can, but that may not be enough, which would mean that the opportunity had been missed. Public funds need to be properly invested. If we fail to invest, and crime continues to increase, public expenditure on legal aid, the courts and many other matters will also increase.
I have addressed two matters that I believe the Government should seriously consider: first, the problems faced by the outer-London boroughs in terms of

increasing crime and decreasing resources; and secondly, the role of local authorities in future partnerships, which I strongly support. All Londoners, wherever they live, have to put up with the effects of crimes—some are the victims of mindless violence, others of anti-social behaviour or theft. Those problems are Londonwide, but I know that the Government are acting quickly to tackle them, not least because of their election pledges. I have been honoured to open this debate, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and of the Minister.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on raising this important subject in a balanced and helpful way. We have an annual debate on the Metropolitan police, and we are now roughly mid-term, which gives us an opportunity to review some of the trends that are beginning to emerge. I share his view, which is based on statistical evidence, that the current picture on recorded crime is, in many ways, encouraging—the favourable trends are reflected in the area that I represent in south-west London—and I congratulate the Metropolitan police on that.
We should not be too complacent, however. Most crimes involve property, and many historical data show a strong correlation between property crime and the state of the economy. Once the current boom is over and unemployment begins to rise again, the trends may be less encouraging.
I draw attention to something more worrying—the trend in the resourcing of the Metropolitan police, and police numbers. In the five years before the change of Government–1992£97—the number of Metropolitan police officers declined by roughly 1,300, a fact about which both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party made a great deal. Since March 1997—the beginning of the new statistical base—the decline has continued and, unfortunately, accelerated. The number of Metropolitan police officers fell by 384 between March and September 1997, with a further fall of 189 between September 1997 and April of this year. The decline is even more rapid than in 1992–97. I do not suggest that that necessarily shows a decline in the Government's commitment to the police in general, because police numbers outside London seem actually to have increased.
The problem is specific to London—it reflects the formula through which London receives its allocation, which has long been a source of concern to the Metropolitan police. Although the force received a relatively favourable settlement this year, that has not stopped the rot of the decline in police numbers. I would be grateful to the Minister for some explanation of why that trend is continuing. There may be problems of recruitment as well as problems of cash, but it would be helpful to know where the continuing decline leaves the Metropolitan police's declared strategic objective to increase the number of police officers this year. They are not going to meet that objective, as there will be a substantial decline.
The hon. Member for Upminster mentioned the strong trend towards a decline in the number of accessible police stations. That has grown over the years, and in 1997 there were six closures and hours were reduced at 18 stations, one of which is in my constituency. I have discussed the


trend with senior police officers who make a reasonable operational case that, given the often painful options they have, it is often the most sensible action.
It is sensible of senior police officers to make sure that officers are out on the street rather than sitting behind a desk, if that is the choice that has to be made. However, that choice should not have to be made. Accessibility to police stations is important to public confidence, and fear of crime is considerably reduced if a local population knows that it has access at reasonable hours to a police station within a reasonable distance. The matter should be dealt with through civilianisation rather than reduction of access to police stations. How does the Minister see the trend towards declining access? Is it part of a concerted strategic reorganisation of the service, or has it just happened as a temporary fallout from financial cuts?
My final point arises from the disturbing Lawrence inquiry which is currently taking place. It has been a traumatic experience for the police, as well as a harrowing one for the Lawrence family. I do not want to comment on the inquiry or on the substance of the case, but the inquiry has highlighted the serious long-term increase in London of racial "incidents", as police statistics call them.
There appears to be no basis for calculating violence; racial incidents may not necessarily involve violence, but their trend is strongly upward. Figures obtained from written questions to the Minister suggest that, since 1995, the number of incidents across London rose from about 580 for each 100,000 people to 830 last year. In area 5, my area in a relatively affluent bit of south-west London, the number had risen even more, from 420 to 800 for each 100,000 people.
That does not necessarily mean racial violence, as the statistics are a little ambiguous, but it is suggestive none the less. The figures puncture some of the complacency we sometimes hear. There is a broad feeling that Britain is doing rather well in race relations these days, and certainly in comparison with France and Germany. There is a feeling that race relations are much easier than they used to be, and that people feel more comfortable in a multicultural society. However, the undercurrent appears to be a rising trend in racial incidents.
Will the Minister indicate his awareness of that problem? Senior police officers are aware of racial difficulties, and police training is much more sophisticated than it used to be. At senior officer level, there is an enlightened approach to matters affecting ethnic minorities, but I suspect that that is not totally carried through, and I hope that an understanding of the worrying trend in the figures, combined with the outcome of the Lawrence inquiry, will result in more attention being given to the problem.

Ms Karen Buck: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on introducing a debate that has implications for every hon. Member who represents a London seat. Like him, I want to accentuate the positive, and I join in his congratulations to Sir Paul Condon on the Metropolitan police's success in turning back the tide of crime in recent years. However, the borough of Westminster, part of which I represent, went against that trend, with a reported crime increase last year. In an over-dramatised feature a few weeks ago in the

Evening Standard, Westminster topped the crime league table, to the newspaper's apparent surprise. I shall return to that point, as it raises interesting questions.
I warmly welcome the Government's initiative to pilot youth justice schemes through the Crime and Disorder Bill. One of the pilots will cover all my constituency, the rest of Westminster, Kensington, Hammersmith and Fulham. The pilot will test final warning schemes, reparations, child safety and parenting orders, and youth offending teams, and it will bring together council-run social service and education authorities, the police, the probation service, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service.
That will show the importance of partnership, which, where it exists, has been extremely successful in helping to engage the community in the broadly based crime prevention strategies that are essential to turn the tide of crime. The importance of those parts of the Crime and Disorder Bill cannot be over-emphasised. Crime is not one-dimensional, and the police alone can never solve it.
There have been real successes based on collaborative working in my community. I congratulate the local police in Notting Hill on working with the police in Paddington on a real turnaround in the Colville area of North Kensington and Westminster. Until last autumn, it was plagued by drug dealing and prostitution. During my first months as a Member of Parliament, I was quite rightly flooded with correspondence from residents who felt besieged in their own homes by the extensive dealing and prostitution going on outside them. There has been a dramatic turnaround, because of a combination of good policing strategies rooted in the local community and the introduction of closed circuit television cameras in North Kensington.
There have been other successes. Where regeneration projects target crime prevention, they can bring about real change. The single regeneration budget covering my home ward, Queen's Park in Westminster, has been at least partly responsible for a significant fall in street crime and burglaries. As we are rethinking regeneration strategies, we should make sure that crime prevention is at the heart of them. Crime prevention goes hand in hand with youth activities and employment and training schemes.
A project in north Kensington should be a model for crime prevention work. Youth Cable TV is an innovative project that brings disaffected young people—those excluded from school or at risk of it—together with school classes, and it teaches young people the performance and technical aspects of television production. I was privileged to visit it before the election, and I cannot overstate how impressed I was with its work.
Over the years that the project has been running, more than 500 young people have gone through its schemes, and there is no doubt that it has engaged young people's imagination, has brought them off the streets, and has removed many of them from the risk of offending. It has done that with a mixture of lottery and privately raised funding, and I hope that we will be able to invite Ministers to come to see the part that that genuinely imaginative and radical project plays in solving the crime problem.
I met the director of Youth Cable TV yesterday, when she told me some of her ideas for plugging into the youth justice pilot. For example, the project is considering developing video letters as part of a reparation scheme.


In cases in which a victim of crime and the proponent cannot be brought together, perhaps because the victim would find it too traumatic to be in the same room, YCTV could film the young person who committed the crime explaining a little of what happened. That is an exciting and imaginative way to contribute towards reparation.
We should be proud of some excellent schemes initiated and led by both the police and the community. I hope that we can build on that good practice and look laterally at the contribution that such schemes can make.
However, I have three main concerns. I seek today not specific answers, but general assurances that the Home Office recognises the scale of the problem. I began by saying that the borough of Westminster appeared from the recently released crime figures to have gone against the trend and suffered an increase in reported crime. I am conscious—it is brought to my attention by constituents—of the extent to which the residential communities, primarily although not exclusively in the north of the borough, feel neglected because they are in the shadow of the west end, where a high proportion of Westminster's reported crime occurs.
Last year, Westminster had 30,000 reported crimes more than its nearest rival. That reflects the fact that the population of the borough, and that of its neighbour, Kensington and Chelsea, are inflated by more than 1 million tourists and commuters a day. It is thus unsurprising that the crime figures are higher. The mere fact that Westminster covers the heart of the city makes likely an increase in violent crime associated with heavy drinking, because of the number of pubs, restaurants and alcohol outlets concentrated there. Westminster is at the heart of London's prostitution trade. Inevitably, there is also more drug dealing—many drug dealers operate from the heart of the city.
The police must go where crime is highest. Only last week, I met the divisional commander for Paddington, an officer whom I like and greatly respect. We discussed the issue in the context of a crime problem close to me, involving a chemist at the heart of a local drug market. In discussing the policing of that problem and the nuisance that surrounds it, he perfectly reasonably remarked that, when he was planning the distribution of resources to fight crime in the borough, he has to concentrate on areas such as Bayswater and the west end, where reported crime is highest.
The officer said that, in north Paddington and northern parts of the borough, the statistics show, as they unarguably do, that crime is lower, so it would be unjustifiable for him to direct resources disproportionately to that area. I stress that he and other police commanders are committed to good and effective policing of those communities. I do not say that they are under-policed, but people in the residential communities of the estates and streets of north Paddington feel that their problems of anti-social behaviour, nuisance and crime do not always get the attention they deserve.
This is not only an issue of policing. Recently, the CCTV scheme covering Oxford street went live. I was pleased that local newspapers reported that the first signs are that it has significantly reduced crimes such as handbag theft and pickpocketing, which happen in the west end. It is a successful scheme.
The trouble is that people who live on the big council estates in the north are sometimes terrified to leave their homes because of crime, especially street crime, and of youths who congregate and act in a threatening fashion. They feel that they are not getting their share of such resources. Worse, with CCTV schemes, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) and which are welcome and increasingly demanded by many communities, there is a danger of displacement.
That is already being translated into hard facts. The police have told me that, since Oxford street CCTV went live, there are clear signs of crime creeping into the Marylebone area north of Oxford street. In my area, some poor and deprived streets have been cornered between different CCTV schemes. CCTV schemes operate in south Kilburn and on the London Underground and the local station, and a huge and apparently successful one operates in north Kensington. The inevitable result is that street criminals seek areas where no CCTV operates.
The situation is worse for some of my constituents on the streets and estates in the north, because they have also suffered the consequences of recent reductions in the housing department's security budget. They watched with pleasure the introduction of CCTV on Oxford street, to which I think Westminster council contributed £100,000, yet in their blocks of flats there may be incidents of youths gathering on streets and on the stairs inside, taking drugs and, at the very least, being a threatening presence, which is unpleasant for single people and for older people who feel vulnerable.
Projects such as the door entry scheme proposed for Atherstone court on the Warwick estate have been put back because of housing security budget cuts. It is understandable that some sense of grievance is felt because the west end tends to suck in attention and resources. Such people are the poorer as a consequence.
Another illustration is the closure of police stations mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). He rightly noted the trend towards concentration and centralisation of police stations in recent years.
However understandable it may be in the financial context of the Metropolitan police, that trend cuts across the desire of communities for a local police presence to which they can relate so that they can build relationships with police officers. People find local police stations, like policemen on the beat, a comfort. I accept that having police on the beat is often not the most efficacious way to tackle crime, but the issue is not only about reducing crime and catching criminals. It is equally vital to restore public confidence, to make people feel confident in their homes and streets.
In my constituency, the police station in St. John's Wood has been threatened with closure. It is another example of the west end against the residential communities of Westminster, because the Metropolitan police are making a case, sound on its merits, for the redevelopment of Marylebone police station on Seymour street off Oxford street.
The residents of Church street and St. John's Wood again see the demands of policing the west end drawing attention and resources away from their community. As things stand, we cannot be wholly assured that the Met can put in sufficient resources to that corner of the


borough to maintain at least a standard level of service there. We are still at a reasonably early stage of negotiation, although I understand that the police station closure decision was taken some years ago, as part of the capital development programme.
I urge the Minister to accept that the police do not have the most brilliant record of consultation and explanation of their decisions. When decisions are apparently consultative, and it seems that representations are sufficiently strong and broadly based to secure a change of decision, local communities are understandably aggrieved to be told that the decision was actually taken long ago. I hope that lessons will be learned, because communication is a problem.
As it might be one of the only concrete measures we can take without a vast injection of resources, will the Minister look into the imbalance in policing resources within communities, and especially into the performance indicators and year-on-year improvements that are expected of local police? Performance indicators have been invaluable as a benchmark allowing us to monitor and detect trends and there is certainly no going back from their use. The danger is that too rigid an application of performance indicators may accelerate or intensify the trend for the police to concentrate on reaching their targets by focusing on reducing auto crime, pickpocketing or handbag theft in areas where the scale of crime is greatest, as has happened in the west end.
That can detract from their ability to concentrate on the areas of crime that are statistically smaller-scale, but more worrying and damaging to local communities; and on the building of community links through regular police attendance at sector police meetings and other community meetings that are essential to the creation of good personal relationships. I hope that the Minister will take that general message away this morning.
The second of my concerns is that the wholly desirable emphasis on bearing down on crime should not put good community relations at risk. The Home Office is aware of my concern about the stop-and-search figures. For the Met as a whole, according to the report that I have read, but certainly in Westminster, the figures show that black people are more than four times as likely to be stopped and searched as white people. The figures are not only wholly out of line with the ethnic distribution of the local community, but considerably out of line with the charges laid after stop and search.
I know that the statistics do not tell the whole story, and I believe that there are explanations that would help to allay some of the anxieties of the black community and, in particular, the Commission for Racial Equality. From my conversations with local police officers, I am increasingly sure that there is more to the issue than meets the eye. However, I have been given several different, and sometimes conflicting, interpretations of the figures.
It is essential that the Metropolitan police recognise that some anxiety is legitimate when a clear and convincing explanation has not been given. When I first wrote to the Met on the subject, I received a two-line reply, the last line of which said, in effect, "I am anxious that you have misinterpreted these statistics." That is quite unacceptable: I might have misinterpreted the statistics, but that is not the point; the point is that the Met has a responsibility to recognise the scale of concern and to

work with people such as the Council for Racial Equality and other opinion formers to explain what is going on and establish a constructive dialogue.
There are encouraging signs—recent dialogue has been far more constructive, and I look forward to further meetings with the Met. However, I would welcome assurances from the Minister that this is a matter of concern to the Home Office, and that the Home Office will search for a way forward that at least improves the lines of communication between the Met and representatives of the black and other ethnic minority communities.
Let me say a word or two about the environment that creates the conditions in which crime can flourish. I have always agreed with several aspects of the policy of zero tolerance. In particular, I am firmly convinced that, when relatively minor acts of criminality and anti-social behaviour are ignored, a sense of neglect and loss of control is created; and that, in such an environment, more serious crimes can flourish.
Cracking down on such minor acts is not only a matter for the police, but, in order to encourage them to take action along those lines, it is essential to send a strong message to other public agencies, especially local authorities. In that way, we can ensure that the state of neglect and disrepair in some of our streets and housing estates is tackled with vigour. The conditions in some housing estates are appalling, as door entry systems are left broken and play equipment left damaged and covered in graffiti, which creates an atmosphere in which people feel that nothing they can do matters.
Finally, I hope that we can tackle one particular problem, which is that of prostitutes' cards in phone boxes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is dear to my heart as a London Member of Parliament, as it is to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House. The boroughs of Westminster and Kensington, in the middle of London, are a sea of prostitutes' cards.
In the year to November 1997, 10 million cards were removed from central London, but such efforts are like putting one's finger in the dyke, because no sooner are the cards removed than they are re-posted. They create an atmosphere of neglect and sleaze, and it appears that agencies are unable to do anything constructive to solve the problem. The despair of local communities, which have made vigorous representations, is not surprising.

Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. Does she agree that prostitutes' cards, although a nuisance to many of us, are of more serious concern to women; and that they paint an appalling picture of London for visitors to the capital?

Ms Buck: I totally agree that the cards are disgusting, that they are bad for tourism and bad for business, and that many women regard them as threatening. I regard with horror the prospect of having to go into a public phone box with my young son to make a call, because I do not want to have to explain to him why it is full of pornography.
I understand that British Telecom has asked Oftel for a licence modification which would allow BT to bar calls from a BT call box to any number advertised without


authorisation. I welcome the fact that the Department for Trade and Industry has taken a keen interest, and is working with the Home Office to see whether something can be done. Oftel has just finished consulting on the issue, and we await a decision in the near future.
I urge the Minister to take this message back to the Home Office, so that the Home Office, the DTI and Oftel can together implement an effective call-barring system, which would go a long way towards ending the problem. I am pleased that many hon. Members and Westminster council have taken a strong line and urged Ministers to address the issue. I hope that, by working together, we can solve the problem.
I congratulate the Met on the general reduction in crime that has been achieved in recent years, and look forward to dramatic further improvements based on the Crime and Disorder Bill. However, central London has special needs, and its residential communities away from the west end have very particular needs that are in danger of being overlooked. I look forward to hearing a recognition of that fact from the Minister, so that we can go back to our communities and convince them that the general reduction in crime will shortly bring about a real and distinct improvement in their lives.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I should declare an interest, in that the solicitors firm of which a remain a partner, even though I no longer run any cases, has the Police Federation as a client. However, I have not received, nor am I speaking to, any briefing from the Police Federation, and I have not been in communication with the federation about this debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on securing the debate. When discussing crime, it is inevitable that one starts with statistics. The Metropolitan police are to be complimented on having produced figures on a boroughwide basis for the first time. There are problems comparing like with like, borough to borough, but I have no doubt that the statistics will be refined in the light of experience, and that they will be useful for year-on-year comparisons both between and within boroughs.
The statistics show, unlike the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), that Barnet, where my constituency is situated, has the best crime record in London—Westminster having the worst. Again, that is not comparing like with like, as the boroughs are very different. However, I am encouraged to see an overall drop of 10 per cent. in crime in Barnet last year. The statistics reveal serious problems, including a growth in violent crime in Barnet from 988 incidents in 1996–97 to 1,249 last year. The problem is graphically illustrated by the recent despicable murder of a 60-year-old pensioner in my constituency. She was murdered at night in herss home in Hyde crescent.
There have been many changes in policing in my constituency over recent years. We have seen the closure of smaller police stations, and a concentration on one mega-station at Colindale. Inevitably this has created some disquiet and concern in areas that were formerly served by smaller stations. The change programme is not

yet complete. The aim is to merge the two police service divisions in Barnet into one as a consequence of the "Policing in Barnet 2000" plan.
I think that this move will be of great benefit both in terms of efficiency and in developing joint working and joint problem solving with the London borough of Barnet and other agencies. At present the plan is a little uncertain, until the future policing of Hertsmere has been finalised. No doubt the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, will comment on that.
Hertsmere is outside the greater London boundary, but is served by the Metropolitan police as part of the Barnet and Hertsmere division. This poses an additional challenge to the Barnet police service, which wishes to implement the merger of the divisions by 1999. It would be helpful to the local police service if my hon. Friend the Minister were to give some indication of the progress that has been made on this issue.
In referring to the major change programme, I must pay tribute to Chief Superintendent Simon Humphrey, our local police commander. I hope that he will not be too embarrassed to hear me say that I believe that he has been managing the programme effectively but sympathetically, and with pragmatic common sense. He is a thoughtful and intelligent officer, and I know that he is committed to community policing and the practical philosophy behind the new approach that has been heralded by the Crime and Disorder Bill. We are extremely lucky locally to have Chief Superintendent Humphrey in charge of our police.
Inevitably with such a major change programme, it is a major task to maintain public confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, if police stations close, the police must do all they can to maintain visibility and contact with the people in the area affected. Clearly the police are not like the fire brigade, whose staff spend time waiting for the emergency call. The police are out on patrol in the area and on the beat.
If we are to be able to reassure the public—fear of crime is almost as serious a problem as crime itself—the police must continue to be highly visible on the streets and available to local people. For example, consequent on the closure of Hendon police station under the plans approved by the previous Government, I was able to negotiate with Chief Superintendent Humphrey for local police surgeries in Hendon, which are held regularly in the area previously served by the Hendon station. The project has spread out into other areas that were served by other stations that have been closed.
If those surgeries are to succeed, and if the resources in police officer time devoted to them are to be justified, it is important that the public make use of them. Part of the problem is the need for the police to publicise what they are doing in the area. I think that they have some lessons to learn in community contact and publicity for these initiatives. I am discussing with the local police how contact and publicity can be improved.
Important community work such as neighbourhood watch must also be maintained. On Sunday, I visited a stall at Brent Cross shopping centre, which was organised by Dartmouth road neighbourhood watch in my constituency to publicise its work and that of the special constabulary. As well as local volunteers, the local beat constable and the crime prevention officer were on hand


to give advice. The stall was well received. I think that that shows how important the work of neighbourhood watch is to people.
Police work in schools makes a vital contribution to building good police-community relations. As budgets locally have come under pressure, despite the improvements in the Metropolitan police settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last year, there is a risk that much vital community work will come under the microscope. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that we must do all we can to protect these activities.
Our local police, under Chief Superintendent Humphrey, have performed extremely well in making their work more cost-effective. They have been making many efficiency savings to free resources for front-line work. It is frustrating to see that the benefits of improved efficiency are not fairly reflected locally, and that resources are diverted from the outer-London boroughs to the centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North spoke of the problems in her constituency, where resources are diverted to the very centre of London from the outer parts of the centre. The problem is even greater in the outer boroughs, with the transfer of resources to the centre.
Locally, for example, police officer numbers in Colindale have fallen from 428 to 406, along with a reduction in civilian support. We all recognise the serious demands of central London and the problems there, but I am concerned that the apparent success revealed by the statistics for Barnet should not be lost by the redistribution of resources from us and other areas in outer London.
I know that the local police will continue to ensure that policing on the streets remains a priority, and will not suffer from the diversion of resources. I also know that protection of the public will be maintained. However, I do not see that we shall be able to maintain the valuable community work as well. There is a risk of loss of public confidence unless the trend is addressed.
Colindale has been able to achieve its high performance by a more proactive approach to police problem solving, led by better intelligence work and focusing on identifiable trouble spots. I know that the local police welcome the new crime strategies that have been developed, as foreshadowed by the Crime and Disorder Bill. I am already talking to them about how the Bill can best be implemented in Barnet as part of the joint agency approach.
The local police are great supporters of breaking down barriers between the various different agencies and developing joint problem solving. We already have excellent relations between the police and the local authority.
With the major change programme to which I have referred, there is concern that the time scales laid down in the new approach are very ambitious. If any progress can be made on the merger of the two divisions in Barnet, things will become more manageable for the police, despite creating geographically the biggest police division in London.
The police are only part of the story in the fight against crime. We need to improve the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service. The recent Glidewell report clearly points the way for that in London.
I welcome the proposal to create stronger links between the CPS and the police through the creation of local prosecutors based on the same geographical boundaries as the police areas. That will inevitably lead to more public accountability and stronger links. I also welcome the trend for links at a more local level. For example, there is a regular Friday local CPS surgery at Colindale police station. It is an initiative that was commended to me by a local officer on the beat. I think that the message must be getting through of the need for better relationships across the board.
The magistrates and the probation service also need the new powers and responsibilities that will be given by the Crime and Disorder Bill. Having talked to them both recently, I know that they welcome the Government's approach.
I move on to victims and the work of Victim Support locally, which we all know does an excellent job. As the Minister knows, I have expressed concerns recently that the Metropolitan police have adopted a rather restrictive approach in their interpretation of data protection legislation, which has perhaps led to them not passing on all the details of victims that they should to Victim Support, leading to those victims perhaps not having the support and assistance that they need. I hope that, through the Crime and Disorder Bill, we can tackle this problem very soon.
The Crown court witness service is also working well, but we need to look at providing support at the magistrates court. I know that Victim Support has produced a paper on this subject, which has been submitted to the Home Office. It would be of help if the Minister could outline his views on the Victim Support paper and the initiatives that the Home Office is considering to provide support for witnesses in magistrates courts. The vast bulk of day-to-day crime problems are dealt with in the magistrates court, not in the Crown court. Inevitably, there are far more witnesses to look after in the magistrates court, along with far more victims.
There is also a difficult problem with the victims of mentally disordered offenders, who may be serving time not in prisons but in hospitals. There is a real need—perhaps greater than in any other area—to ensure that the victims of such people are kept fully informed, as they would be if the assailant or perpetrator of the offence were detained in prison. The victims of mentally disordered offenders are not notified, for example, when it is likely that the offender will be released from the mental hospital. That could be extremely distressing for the victims, perhaps even more than in the case of a criminal who has served his time in prison. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Home Office is dealing with that problem?
I know that the Crime and Disorder Bill contains many new ideas, such as reparation orders, to help victims, but there are still important issues to address.
It is important that hon. Members become as involved as they can in the criminal justice system locally, through consultation and discussion with various agencies. Most hon. Members have very good relations with their local police and local authorities in considering crime prevention initiatives and the need for the new joint agency approach. I urge those who have not done so to spend a day sitting in the local juvenile and magistrates courts, and to talk to the magistrates behind the scenes to find out their views. I found that a valuable experience a


few months ago when I visited my local magistrates, shortly before Second Reading of the Crime and Disorder Bill. I plan to pay them another visit next week.
It is important that we talk to the Crown Prosecution Service about its problems. I find it interesting to hear about some of the very innovative initiatives being taken by the Middlesex probation service. It is important that we discuss the implications of the Glidewell report with our local CPS.
It is important that we maintain close working relationships with the police, and see at first hand the problems facing officers on the beat. It is easy for Members to talk to senior officers—as I have said, I have a good relationship with my local police commander—but that is not a substitute for talking to local beat officers whose day-to-day job it is to provide better policing of our area.
Next Friday, I intend to spend a day out on the beat with my local officers, policing a large housing estate, Grahame Park. I intend to spend next Friday evening out on patrol in an area car. We shall be driving around Colindale and Burnt Oak, so that should be a lively and exciting evening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) could probably testify. That will be valuable, because I will be able to talk to officers and experience their problems at first hand.
I therefore urge hon. Members to maintain those close relationships, and I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have raised which are of concern to the local police and the community in my constituency.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on securing this debate, and I join him and my hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in congratulating Sir Paul Condon and the Metropolitan police on the general reduction in crime in London. I pay particular tribute to Superintendent Bob Aitchison and members of the Harrow police force for their excellent work in my constituency and the community initiatives that they are undertaking.
I shall concentrate my remarks on domestic violence, which has not so far been mentioned. I am told by the House of Commons Library that there were 32,110 domestic violence offences in the Metropolitan police district last year. Harrow police have told me that 1,036 domestic violence incidents were reported to them. As I am sure all hon. Members will agree, domestic violence is a scourge on our capital and our country in general, affecting victims physically and mentally. It blights the lives primarily—although, I accept, not only—of women, and of children who live in families scarred by incidents of domestic violence.
This is a serious crime, which too often in the past has not been addressed properly or received the attention that it merits. The police and the judicial process have in the past been slow to respond appropriately to the victims of domestic violence. That is improving, and there is much greater awareness of domestic violence among London's local authorities, the Metropolitan police and the courts system, with many examples of good practice and high

levels of commitment to tackling the problem. However, I know that the domestic violence unit in my area is under considerable pressure, which I am sure is mirrored elsewhere in the Metropolitan police district.
I am sure that most hon. Members, certainly those with London constituencies, will agree that much more could be done to tackle domestic violence. Research last year by the university of North London demonstrates that. In the first six months of last year, out of more than 500 domestic violence incidents reported at one London police station, successful prosecutions resulted in only 3 per cent. of cases. In other research, a comparison of cases of domestic and non-domestic violence reported in February this year found that perpetrators of domestic violence were handled more leniently, even when equivalent levels of violence had been used.
I therefore warmly welcome the Government's commitment shortly to introduce a national strategy, which is long overdue, for tackling domestic violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon spoke about statistics, and praised the Metropolitan police for their borough-by-borough breakdown of crime figures. More statistical work is needed on domestic violence, but it is not yet completely clear how that should be measured. If domestic violence is to be given the necessary profile in the general debate about crime and disorder, we must have clarification on those statistics and their use.
Better co-ordination is needed within the police and between police forces, the voluntary sector, local authorities and social services in responding to and preventing incidents of domestic violence. The requirement in the Crime and Disorder Bill to produce a crime prevention strategy, which my hon. Friends have mentioned, will help to improve that co-ordination. I pay particular tribute to Harrow women's centre and Harrow Women's Aid, which have worked very hard over many years to tackle the consequences of domestic violence. I pay tribute also to my local authority, which has developed an effective community safety strategy and is currently reviewing its response to domestic violence.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), in an Adjournment debate on domestic violence at a national level, highlighted the confusion about the sources of funding to tackle the problem. I endorse that point, and hope that the national strategy will address it. I stress the importance of the active monitoring of the implementation of that national strategy at local and regional levels.
London needs a much better co-ordinated regional response to domestic violence. The establishment of the Greater London authority will help to scrutinise the response of local authorities and the Metropolitan police, but it will be some years before that authority is established, and I hope that the national strategy will facilitate a strong regional response in London to domestic violence.

Mr. James Clappison: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on securing this debate on an important subject. Crime in London is significant, not least for the quality of life of those who live and work there.
We have heard good news about a reduction of 5 per cent. in the overall level of crime in London, which will be widely welcomed, as the commissioner rightly said.


However, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, there is no room for complacency, especially in view of the increase in violent crime. Whatever changes in the reporting, for example, of domestic violence, may play in that overall increase—the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) was right to describe domestic violence as a scourge—it must be watched carefully.
It is right to pay tribute to the Metropolitan police for their part in bringing about that reduction in crime. We owe it to them to ensure that they have the necessary funding and resources to do the job that they are very capable of doing. We need to be vigilant about that.
The hon. Member for Upminster and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) mentioned the impact of recent changes in funding on the police services in their areas; for example, police stations have been closed. We must observe that the Metropolitan police received what can only be described as a tight settlement this year. With masterly understatement, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), described it as "not excessive", but examination of the figures reveals that, in real terms, the Metropolitan police received a funding reduction of some 1.1 per cent.
The hon. Member for Twickenham forecast a decline in the number of police officers in the coming year. Obviously, we must watch that carefully, although I say generally to the hon. Gentleman that one must be very careful when interpreting police numbers.
The hon. Gentleman quoted some figures for the previous Parliament, but when interpreting police numbers one must take into account changes in rank structure that took place over that period. I understand that, during the previous Parliament, more uniformed officers became available for operational duties, which is what members of the public want. However, we need to be vigilant about police numbers, and about the Metropolitan police receiving the resources it deserves. We shall give that matter careful scrutiny.
That is not the main point that I want to make this morning, however. The hon. Member for Upminster spoke about partnerships; I want to speak about two partnerships. If I may say so to Labour Members, it is a little early to revisit the arguments about the Crime and Disorder Bill, which we finished debating only yesterday evening. Hon. Members adverted to the partnerships in the Bill, but I shall leave them alone for once, and speak about other partnerships that are important in the fight against crime. While debating the Bill, we have been talking about partnerships between local authorities and the police and so on, but we should not lose sight of other partnerships which have been playing a vital role.
I shall talk about two partnerships. First, I shall talk about the partnerships that are involved in providing drug treatment services. As the House and the Minister know, drug treatment services depend for their funding on partnerships between local authorities, health authorities and probation services, axnd central Government and the Home Office play a part. Funding for important drug treatment services in London is drawn together from several sources. We need to look carefully at how that funding is drawn together.
Proper funding of drug treatment services is a key investment in the fight against crime in London, as it is elsewhere. There is a strong link between drug addiction

and crime, and every £1 spent on drug misuse treatment gives a cost saving of more than £3 through a lower level of victim costs of crime, especially property crime.
The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North rightly highlighted the way in which the general environment in estates was affected by the presence of drug addicts, and how needles, for example, were left around. Even if they commit no crime, drug addicts' presence in estates can do much to lower the tone and cause problems for local residents. We must have the services in place, therefore, to give treatment to those people who unfortunately suffer from drug problems, to help them to combat their drug addiction and drug problems.
Disturbingly, recent research by the London Drug Services Consortium estimates that this year there has been a £1 million cut in the funding of drug services in London. That has had a knock-on effect on drug services, and vital services, such as Lorne house in Hackney— one of the few residential centres for young people in the whole country, let alone in London—has been forced to close. I visited that establishment last week, and it was sad to think that such an establishment, providing rehabilitation for young people in the 15 to 21-year-old age group, many of whom have been referred there by criminal justice agencies, was being forced to close its doors, and could no longer give that form of treatment to the young people who badly need it.
That is a matter of some concern. Lorne house is not the only service in London to close recently. Other services, some of which were provided by charities, have closed. We need to look at the overall picture, to ensure that the drug treatment services that people in trouble need are available.
I make one specific point to the Minister, which I hope that he will address when he replies to the debate. Will he give me an assurance that the Government will look at the overall picture of drug treatment funding? As funding for drug treatment services is drawn from many sources, it is important for Government to look at the overall picture, to ensure that there is no overall loss of those who provide drug treatment services, and that what can only be described as the haemorrhaging of funds for those services comes to an end, and no more important drug treatment providers are closed. I ask the Minister specifically about that, and I ask him to look at the overall picture and get a grip on this serious problem.
The second form of partnership that I had in mind is that on closed circuit television, which several Labour Members mentioned. CCTV is vital in providing assistance to the police and protection and reassurance to the public, perhaps especially the elderly and small businesses. Its extension in the past few years, through Home-Office-supported bidding rounds, has been a source of great reassurance to many local communities. I speak with some feeling on this, because Borehamwood in my constituency, which is just outside London, recently received CCTV funding, and it has been warmly welcomed by the local authority, local residents and businesses, especially pensioners and those representing the elderly.
London has benefited from the extension of closed circuit television, as have many other parts of the country. In the financial year beginning in 1996,£3.9 million was awarded to 44 bids by London boroughs. In 1997–98,


£3.4 million was awarded to 36 bids by London boroughs. So far, I believe, in the current year, the Government have been able to find only £1 million for new schemes nationally, as part of a total of £9 million which includes funding for schemes already in existence.
According to figures that I have obtained from the Library—my maths is not so good, so no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—only £257,000 has been awarded to London boroughs for CCTV bids in 1998–99. The Minister may put me right on that, but I suggest that the Government need to look carefully at that, to ensure that the Home Office funding is provided to support the partnership bids by London boroughs, by local authorities, and by businesses and other parts of the community, in support of a key element in the fight against crime.
Briefly, I shall mention two matters that have arisen in the debate. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned prostitutes' cards in television kiosks. The House will have gathered that I strongly agree with her on that point. It is a highly profitable trade, and those who are involved in it display great persistence. The hon. Lady mentioned measures—which I am sure that the Minister will want to refer to—that the Department of Trade and Industry and the telephone companies are taking. As an MP representing Westminster, she is no doubt aware that Westminster was recently involved in a prosecution of those who put telephone cards in telephone kiosks in, I believe, the Edgware road area, and that the prosecution failed because of a technicality in the planning law.
I happen to know, because I drive past every day, that such cards are still being placed in telephone kiosks in the Edgware road. I noticed that last night, because, with today's debate in mind, I made a point of looking. The telephone kiosks in Edgware road are still full of prostitutes' cards, and I am sure that many members of the public in London would like them to be taken out, and kept out. If a change in the law is needed to achieve that, on top of the other measures that have been taken, I invite the Minister to think carefully about it.
The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) mentioned policing in Barnet, which, as he rightly says, involves the policing of Hertsmere, just outside London. I may be straying slightly from the debate on policing in London, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, responsibility for policing in Hertsmere, in Hertfordshire, and in several other areas just outside London, is being taken from the Metropolitan police and given to county police authorities. That is a matter of great interest to me, and I place on the record the fact that I shall take a close interest in it to ensure that the transition is managed smoothly and that there is no diminution in police cover and the number of police officers available in my constituency and others.
However, this has been a debate about policing in London, and some important points have been raised. I stress to the Minister that, for all the Government's good words and good intentions, and all the talk about partnerships, we must ensure that resources are available to assist those on the ground who are carrying out the key elements in the fight against crime, and we must closely scrutinise that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I join my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on securing a debate on such an important issue. He rightly pointed up the substantial increase in crime under the previous Conservative Administration. I agree that their abysmal failure on law and order contributed to their election defeat last year.
The Government came to power determined to reduce the unacceptably high levels of crime and disorder that they inherited. We seek to tackle crime and the causes of crime, and our measures must be considered in combination with initiatives in education, employment and health, which together will contribute to the improvement of people's quality of the life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster rightly drew attention to the need for statutory partnerships. The Crime and Disorder Bill requires the police and the local authority jointly to undertake a crime and disorder audit in their district borough or unitary authority area, in consultation with other agencies and the wider community. They will then have to develop a local strategy to tackle the identified crime and disorder problems in various areas of London.
The work of the partnerships will be to implement those local strategies, which will include clear targets and action at a much more local level in the local authority area. We expect those proposals to be implemented this September, and partners should commence their audits then. That will enable basic strategies to be in place by April 1999, and at three-year intervals after that. The timetable is challenging, but achievable. Our intentions have been well trailed, and many local authorities are already making good progress.
Although the duty is laid on the police and the local authority in the first instance, we expect many other organisations to be involved. The Crime and Disorder Bill specifically includes probation committees, health authorities and police authorities. Others who may be included are the voluntary and business sectors, schools, further education colleges, public transport providers, the Crown Prosecution Service—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred—and many others, depending on local circumstances. The role of the police and the local authorities is to act as a catalyst, causing other bodies to become involved in the process.
The key is tailoring solutions to meet local problems in London. Circumstances vary so much across the country that we do not intend to specify a nationwide strategy for the reduction of crime which must be religiously followed. What is appropriate in rural Suffolk may not be appropriate in Hackney. We want to provide a broad framework within which local partnerships can work, and to be as non-prescriptive as possible, to allow flexibility in designing local solutions. We heard in the debate how problems in various parts of London are often quite different, and we need local solutions.


We recognise that much good work is already being done in London, but it is largely voluntary. Our legislation will make formal arrangements, so that the whole of London benefits from the reductions in crime and disorder that can be realised when agencies work together in such a way. To help those new to this area, the Home Office, with the help of various organisations, is publishing guidelines covering the conduct of a crime and disorder audit, structural issues involved with partnership working, information exchange, and training. An advance draft is available on the internet.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) mentioned resources. Local authorities and the police need to prioritise their resources to make sure that those Government initiatives succeed. There are never enough resources; it is a matter of determining priorities and making most efficient use of resources. That is true of the Government and of local government. The initiatives are important, and I am sure that local authorities and the police around the country, and certainly in London, want to ensure that they make them work.
Our partnerships will produce long-term savings in crime costs. The arrangements formalise a lot of the good work that is already going on in many London boroughs, without central funding. We believe that multi-agency approaches work, and we shall monitor the results carefully, but we are not convinced that there is a real funding problem. We need to ensure that funding is properly prioritised, and that the partnerships succeed.
Many hon. Members referred to policing in London, and I shall therefore take some time over it. The police service is obviously key to the delivery of safer communities, and the Metropolitan police has operated under considerable pressure in recent years. We recently announced the decision to redraw its boundaries to take account of the Greater London authority, and to simplify liaison arrangements between local authorities, other criminal justice agencies and the police.
The Metropolitan police was awarded a 3.7 per cent. increase in 1997–98, which is in line with the national average for police authorities in England and Wales, and which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis described as very fair in the current economic climate. He still expects to deliver the high level of service which produced a 6 per cent. fall in crime in 1997.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out in his helpful contribution that 1,300 officers were lost to London under the previous Administration. It is a tribute to the Metropolitan police and its hard work that it has had so much success in tackling crime. He also helpfully accepted that the Government are committed to ensuring that the police operate properly and are properly resourced. The Commissioner must determine how he deploys his resources. Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the Government have no power to insist that resources are spent specifically on police numbers.
The operational independence of chief constables and of the Commissioner is quite rightly closely guarded by senior officers. We must recognise that operational independence includes the Commissioner's decisions on where to deploy officers in London. I note the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon about whether officers should be deployed in inner or

outer London, and I am sure that the Commissioner will read the report of the debate and recognise some of those concerns.
The settlement for the Metropolitan police was 3.7 per cent., or £1,775 million, which represents considerable spending power. Included in the total settlement is a special payment, which was increased by £21 million to £151 million for 1998–99, in recognition of the Met's position in policing the capital city—Sit has particular national functions. The increase followed a review of the special payment, led by the Home Office and assisted by the Met. The £151 million is paid as a 100 per cent. Home Office grant. The settlement is fair, although not excessive, and in line with the national average.
The Met is committed to delivering value for money. Its five-year corporate strategy, "The London Beat", emphasises the importance of the bobby, and is committed to high-visibility patrolling to strengthen public confidence and trust. It also identifies the need for best use of resources. The Commissioner is confident that he can deliver to Londoners the high level of service that they have come to expect.
We shall do all we can to ensure that the police service has adequate resources to tackle crime and disorder. We are committed, however, to keeping a tight rein on public spending for the remainder of this Parliament. It is vital that resources are used effectively. We need to continue to work to ensure that the police deliver an efficient and effective service at a price that the public can afford. We fully accept that the police need adequate funding, but outputs and outcomes are important, and they are not necessarily directly related to inputs.
In the time available, I shall have difficulty in dealing with a number of issues that have been raised, but I shall mention a few.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Member for Hertsmere rightly referred to the change in Metropolitan police boundaries. There are three main reasons for those changes. First, boundaries have remained unchanged, with the exception of minor adjustments in 1946. Secondly, they are not based on the needs of modern policing. Under the current arrangements, local authorities, criminal justice agencies and the county districts of the Met police district often have to work with two different forces. That can lead to duplication and delay, and can seriously affect efficient policing.
The third reason is that we need more democratic accountability. A majority of members of the new Metropolitan police authority will be elected members of the GLA. Residents in those parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey which are currently policed by the Met will not have a vote in the elections for the mayor and GLA members. Those areas should therefore be policed by county forces whose police authorities already provide local democratic accountability. We need to ensure that all that is done properly, and, with the hon. Member for Hertsmere and others, we shall deal with those matters with great care.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to racist incidents. I assure him that we are seeking to tackle those through our Crime and Disorder Bill. Hon. Members raised a number of other issues, but I regret that in the time available I will not be able to deal with them.


The Government are committed to being tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime. Our Crime and Disorder Bill will deliver our 12 manifesto commitments. It has broad support. After 18 years of inaction in London, we now have a Government who are committed to dealing with the concerns of local people and police officers in tackling crime. It is not enough simply to increase penalties, as the previous Government did; we need new ideas, such as the parenting and anti-social behaviour orders. We need new strategies at a local level, and new partnerships to cut crime. We now have a Government who are tackling crime in London in a serious way. That makes a change, does it not?

Vitamin B6

11 am

Mr. Keith Simpson: The Select Committee on Agriculture yesterday published a damning report on the Government's intention to limit the level of consumption of vitamin B6 to a daily dose of 10 mg. I want to pay tribute to the members of that Select Committee, which began its work in March and has completed it in a short time. It took a mass of evidence. The Committee was dominated numerically by Labour Members. I recognise that it is often difficult for members of such Committees to resist the temptation to back their own party, but the members of the Agriculture Committee unanimously concluded that the Government were wrong; that they had over-reacted; that they had made a wrong decision; that the scientific evidence on which their decision had been based was unjustified; and that, once informed of the risks, we, the consumers, should be free to take vitamin B6 as we like.
The purpose of the debate is to persuade the Minister sto withdraw his draft legislation, to admit that he made a wrong decision, and to consider his ministerial position; after all, the conclusion of the Select Committee report was in effect a total vote of no confidence in him as a Minister.
Members of Parliament are rarely lucky enough for a debate to follow so closely the publication of a Select Committee report dealing with a contemporary issue still open to consultation, and so perhaps to be able to exert real influence on the Government and persuade them to change their mind.
Some 3 million people take regular doses of vitamin B6; 80 per cent. of them are women. They have exercised their choice and they take vitamin B6 in different doses for a variety of reasons. The overwhelming majority of them are convinced that it is of great benefit. Since the Minister first signalled his intention to regulate the consumption of vitamin B6, Members of Parliament have received more than 100,000 letters of complaint, some of which have been passed on to the Minister.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister pointed out that the letters that we and he had received had come from a variety of sources. With a lightness of touch, he said:
I will not even make a joke because I have not counted them but a number of men said taking 100 mg of B6 every day helped them with their PMS and they have signed the letters.
No doubt that witty comment was based on some element of fact; we are all aware that a number of lobby groups write to us on great issues like this. However, most Members can distinguish quickly between a generally signed letter and one that comes from a genuine constituent. One such letter came from Diane Turner, a constituent of mine in my home town of Reepham. She runs Diane's Pantry—a combination of health shop and local store. She has not lobbied on behalf of a health food company; she is a woman of great common sense, as are her customers.
I draw the attention of the House to the origins of the proposed legislation to limit the consumption of vitamin B6. It was largely based on scientific evidence drawn from the 1987 Dalton and Dalton study, which suggested that high doses of vitamin B6, taken over prolonged periods, had been shown to be harmful.


Since the Minister announced his proposal and explained the scientific basis for it, he has been widely criticised by scientific and medical opinion and has provoked disbelief, anger and dismay among millions of consumers. In the damning words of the Select Committee:
It is our view that the doubts concerning the Dalton and Dalton study are so serious that it is scientifically unjustifiable to use them as the basis for establishing a lowest observed adverse effect level in relation to Vitamin B6 intake.
Everyone agrees that high doses of vitamin B6, of about 2,000 mg a day, can be dangerous and can lead to tingling in the hands and feet, loss of sensation and muscle weakness; I suspect that you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call it pins and needles. What is disputed is the level of maximum safe dose. As regulators, our American cousins are famously averse to risk, for fear of being sued, and tend to err on the side of caution. Yet, in America, vitamin B6 is a allowed to be sold over the counter in doses of 100 mg–10 times the British limit proposed by the Minister.
We are not talking only about the balance of risk; we are talking about the balance of ministerial judgment. That is something to which the Minister also drew attention in his evidence to the Select Committee. He said:
It is our job as politicians, as guardians of the public interest in looking at public health, to weigh up and make a judgment. The judgment is not for ever more, it is a judgment based on best evidence we may have available at the time to make it.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is it not extraordinary that a Government who were elected on a platform of helping women have, in one fell swoop, acted to take away from them the one vitamin that can help them at certain times of their lives and on a monthly basis?

Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend is correct, and in a few minutes I intend to refer to the Government's hypocrisy over consumer choice.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) asked the Minister:
Have you personally looked at the evidence that COT looked at, in particular Dalton and Dalton and the Phillips study?
The Minister replied:
The answer is yes, but it is no good asking me any questions about it. I am a production engineer".
On the surface, that seems very fair, but most Ministers are not experts. Indeed, most politicians, by definition, are not experts. By background, I am a military historian. Other Members have backgrounds as doctors, nurses, teachers and so on. When one becomes a Minister, one has sometimes to make judgments based on contradictory evidence. As I shall show in a few minutes, the Minister's track record in that respect is not good.

Dr. Nick Palmer: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). It therefore appears that he believes that vitamin B6, as a food additive, is effective as a treatment for pre-menstrual syndrome. Is that his belief? If it is, it contradicts the findings of the Select Committee and the belief of the vast majority of scientists, who say that the evidence is extremely inconclusive.

Mr. Simpson: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in that matter.
In his draft regulatory appraisal, the Minister said that he was faced with five options:
Option 1—do nothing;
Option 2—address the problem simply by requiring, on a voluntary basis or, if necessary, by legislation, that supplements containing vitamin B6 products include a warning of the risks of prolonged intake of high doses;
Option 3—seek agreement from industry to limit the level of Vitamin B6 in supplements and add warning labels on a voluntary basis;
Option 4—introduce a higher limit than that recommended coupled with warning labels;
Option 5—legislate to implement COT's and FAC's recommendations in full.
The Minister was faced with five options, ranging from do nothing to legislating. He decided to use the legislative sledgehammer—option 5—whereas most reasonable people would have concluded that the evidence pointed to option 2 or 3.
This is not the only case of ministerial misjudgment at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister used the legislative sledgehammer some months ago when he decided to ban beef on the bone, to the disbelief of scientists and the majority of consumers. He is rapidly becoming the biggest nanny of them all: to consumers throughout the country, he symbolises the ultimate nanny state.
The Minister has on many occasions, including in his evidence to the Select Committee, talked about the Government putting the consumer first, but he has not done that. He has put bureaucracy and flawed judgment before scientific evidence and common sense, and he has put the consumer last—whether on the issue of beef on the bone or on vitamin B6.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I served on the Committee that conducted the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is being irresponsible and excessively party political in placing the whole emphasis of his attack on the Minister. The Minister was faced with the report by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment saying that vitamin B6 could be damaging in doses over a certain limit. What is a responsible Minister to do in that position? Is he supposed to ignore the report and gloss over it, or do what the Minister did and propose a regulation and put it out to consultation? My hon. Friend is now considering the responses to that consultation. That seems to me a very responsible approach.

Mr. Simpson: I accept that the hon. Gentleman was on the Select Committee, but I think that any fair-minded man or woman reading the report would see that what the decision ultimately came down to was a ministerial misjudgment. A range of options were open to the Minister, and he made the wrong choice. This issue has been around the Ministry of Agriculture for some time.
I fear that millions of consumers have lost confidence in the Minister's judgment. There is a real danger that, at some future point, a clear, scientifically based, unequivocal threat to food safety will be ignored by consumers, because they will think that it is another case of beef on the bone or vitamin B6—another Rooker's folly. The Minister should accept the Select Committee's recommendations, withdraw his draft legislation on vitamin B6, and admit that he made a serious error of judgment.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I am pleased that we are having a debate on vitamin B6; indeed, I was fairly certain that there would be a debate after the consultation process finished on Friday. I am sorry that it has begun with an attack on the Minister by the Opposition. The Minister is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I would not like to be in his shoes and have to make a decision on the matter.
Opinions differ across the political parties. The controversy has generated my largest postbag to date: it is even larger than that generated by fox hunting or by my controversial views on the misuse of illicit substances. Shortly after the general election, letters from my constituents started to arrive which first alerted me to the Government's proposal on vitamin B6. Being a chemist, I was attracted to the topic, and I soon found that a factory in my constituency employing 150 people manufactures high-dose dietary supplements of the vitamin.
I want to highlight a major difficulty. The Government's proposal has been made under food law—we should not lose sight of that fact. However, hundreds of thousands of people—mainly women suffering from premenstrual stress—take these high-dose dietary supplements of vitamin B6 daily because they believe that it helps to alleviate a medical condition. We need more research to substantiate the medical claims made for vitamin B6. I hope that that research will be carried out in the not too distant future.
The major difficulty is that dietary supplements fall into a regulatory no man's land between foodstuffs and medicines. Medicines are closely regulated—as they should be— whereas food law expressly forbids medical claims to be made for foodstuffs. Unfortunately, vitamins fall between medicines on the one hand and foodstuffs on the other.
The Government propose to restrict the recommended daily intake of the vitamin to 10 mg under food law. I am sure that the Minister will stress that tablets containing 11 mg to 49 mg will still be available over the counter in pharmacies, and that general practitioners will be able to prescribe tablets containing more than 50 mg.

Mr. John Hayes: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must correct him. There was no previous definition of this substance in European Union or United Kingdom law. In their draft regulations, the Government have defined vitamin B6 as a "food supplement." Those are their words.

Dr. Iddon: I do not necessarily agree with the Government's definition. I stick to my point that vitamins and other substances that we take orally fall between foodstuffs and medicines. There are no proper Government regulations to control such substances. That is the point I am trying to make.
The higher-dose tablets will cost much more from pharmacists and doctors—especially if they are on prescription—than they cost in health food shops at present. GPs' surgeries will be a little fuller than at present, and I am against that. Alternatively, a

consumer could buy the 10 mg tablets and take 10 in one day, which would make a mockery of any regulation that the Government propose.
Following complaints from the Consumers Association, the Ministry referred vitamin B6 to the Food Advisory Committee, which in turn asked the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment to look into the problem. In 1996, back went the advice to the Minister of the day under the previous Administration. He was not convinced by the evidence at that time, so COT and FAC were asked to re-run their inquiries. On 4 July 1997, the current Minister made a recommendation to the House. I stress again that that was under food law.
Nutritionists complain that they were not directly involved in the decision-making process. They probably have a point, because nutrition is now a highly respected subject. We must ask ourselves whether the Government have in place the right mechanisms for making such decisions. Paragraph 2.7 on page 6 of the recent White Paper "The Food Standards Agency" states:
Where there are uncertainties about the scientific evidence, an element of political judgement is inevitably involved in reaching decisions on the best course of action.
Let us briefly examine the scientific evidence.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there was a degree of concern and fear in the Department because of the BSE outbreak, so people there were bending over backwards to keep things straight, and in the process were coming to wrong judgments?

Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend the Minister will have to answer that question. I do not know what goes on in the Ministry. However, there have been a number of food scares, not just that relating to BSE, as a result of which the decision was taken to set up the Food Standards Agency—which I strongly support—with all that that involves. I am fully behind that. We must also bear in mind the precautionary principle, of which I am sure the Minister will also remind us. In his own way, he is taking into account consumers' best interests.
Although COT claims to have reviewed more than 100 scientific papers, two appear to have caught its eye and most influenced its conclusions. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) referred to the Dalton and Dalton work, published in 1986 and 1987, based on human toxicity studies. They claim to have observed peripheral sensory neuropathy in women using vitamin B6 to treat PMS with daily intakes as low as 50 mg over prolonged periods of 35 months.
COT stated that the work had "some methodological deficiencies", but that the study could not be ignored. The problem is that no one has managed to repeat the Dalton and Dalton work. The most comprehensive review of the safety of vitamin B6 was carried out last year by Cantox Inc. in the United States. Its report, published last year, concludes:
The deficiencies of the Dalton and Dalton study of 1987 are so great that they prohibit the use of the findings in making a decision to the long-term safe upper intake of pyridoxine.
Pyridoxine is another name for vitamin B6.
The deficiencies cited by the report were: a potential bias in describing the symptoms experienced and the lack of objective neurological assessment; the lack of


information related to concomitant medications or concurrent medical conditions; and possible inaccuracies in reporting the actual doses of vitamin B6 taken and the duration of the treatment. There was no control group in the Dalton and Dalton study, and it relied almost completely on observation, with little accurate scientific support. For example, no neurologist was involved in the study.
Recently, at a meeting in the other place, I asked Katrina Dalton to defend those criticisms. She responded by throwing down the paper, claiming that vitamin B6 had potential teratogenic effects. There is little scientific evidence for that claim either.
On 13 February 1997, I received a letter from Damien Downing, the senior editor of the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. He enclosed a letter from Professor Alan Gaby, which has now been published. Professor Gaby, working in the United States, has attempted to repeat the Dalton work which was carried out here in London. He has concluded:
Dalton's claim that these symptoms were caused by B6 is highly questionable".
Professor Gaby found that the same symptoms occurred among the control group of women who were suffering from PMS and depression but who were not being treated with vitamin B6 as among the group of women who were being treated with vitamin B6.
The lowest adverse effect level reported in animals is 50 mg per kg of body weight; that was in beagles, after administration for approximately 16 weeks. That was the work of Phillips and Munro in 1978 in Canada.
COT, in its report to the Ministry, stated:
With a safety factor of 300 and assuming that an individual weighs 60 kilograms, extrapolation from the lowest observed adverse effect level in dogs would give a maximum daily safe dose for humans of 10 mg.
That is where that figure of 10 mg comes from.
That safety factor of 300 used by COT is only ever applied to extremely dangerous substances such as the organophosphate insecticides. Such a high safety figure has never been applied to anything that is taken orally and described as a foodstuff. For example, if it applied to beer, we would be recommended to take only one teaspoonful a day. That is ridiculous. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.1 Well, it is for me. A more reasonable safety factor of 30 would lead to an upper daily dose of 100 mg, the higher dose level with which the industry would be happy and which all the scientific evidence suggests is acceptable.
Early-day motion 209 carried 111 signatures by 3 June, while early-day motion 1303 carried 93 signatures by 10 June. The signatories reflect the extreme concern across all the political parties represented in the House about the Ministry's proposal.
What worries me most about the proposal is the way in which the scientific evidence has been used to make the recommendation to the Minister. I must question whether the right machinery is in place for scientific evidence to be used to advise the Government. I have written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is about to conduct an inquiry into

the use of scientific evidence by the Government decision-making machinery, giving evidence on that point.

Mr. Owen Paterson: In a letter to me dated 28 July 1997, Professor Gaby was emphatic in dismissing the Dalton and Dalton report. He said:
The report by Dalton and Dalton alleging toxicity at 50 mg per day was so replete with flaws and questionable interpretations that it cannot be taken seriously by objective scientists.

Dr. Iddon: I have seen that letter, as, I know, has the Minister, who will make his own observations on it.
Last year, a conference was held here in London on the safety of vitamin B6. It presented ample evidence to show that the 10 mg proposal was over the top. All the specialists present, and many others who have published articles and scientific papers since then, have agreed on that conclusion.
On 7 April, just a few weeks ago, the American Academy of Sciences institute of medicine published a voluminous paper on dietary reference intakes. That paper is now the most extensive and authoritative review on the safety of vitamin B6 published anywhere in the world. Its conclusion is that intake levels of 200 mg per day or less produce no adverse effects, but it recommends a tolerable upper intake level of 100 mg per day, based on human studies—the figure to which I just referred.
The question is whether all those opinions should outweigh those of a small group of people —I think three—from COT, which made the 10 mg a day proposal to the Ministry. That is the big question that the Minister will have to weigh carefully before he makes his final decision.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Iddon: I should like to conclude.
Yesterday, another important document was published, to which reference has already been made—the report of the Agriculture Committee on vitamin B6, which concludes what many of us believe, that we should not adopt the 10 mg recommendation, even under food law, until more research is available to prove that it is necessary.
When a small group of us met the Minister before Christmas to discuss the proposal, he seemed to have a genuinely open mind on the subject. I hope that he still has, and that he will keep an open mind until the consultation period concludes on Friday. Stuck as he is between a rock and a hard place, I hope that he will weigh the evidence carefully and use his best political judgment.
In conclusion, I recognise that some hon. Members have opinions different from mine on this subject. I do not see this as a political issue. I am glad that we are debating it, but I repeat that we should debate it as a matter of scientific study rather than as a way of attacking the Minister.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate. I have long taken a very keen


interest in the matter. I must declare, first, that I have been an officer of the all-party alternative and complementary medicine group for the past 10 years. Secondly, I have long taken an interest specifically in diet and allergies, and went round a clinic for the first time in 1981. Thirdly, I practise what I preach—I take vitamin B6 supplements and other supplements. I was advised to take 100 mg of B6, which I think has helped me in my work and also to sleep—[Interruption.] I see one of the doctors laughing, but 3 million or more people cannot be wrong.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Three million people voted Tory.

Mr. Tredinnick: We shall be pressed for time if we engage in such banter. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has just mentioned the fact that vitamin B6 is a cross-party issue. The signatures on the three early-day motions that he mentioned—one of which I initiated, and which received almost 100 signatures—show that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the issue.
I have consistently warned that the problem would not go away. The Minister has been guilty of tunnel vision. To use the old—some might say quite hackneyed—phrase, the light at the end of the tunnel has turned out to be the headlight of an express train, which has now raced out of the tunnel. Its passengers are not only the 3 million people who have already been mentioned—ladies with pre-menstrual tension—but elderly people with Alzheimer's disease and people with skin conditions. All sorts of deficiencies are put right by the use of vitamin supplements. Very often, doctors refer to vitamin specialists the patients they cannot cure—which is another reason why the issue must be handled so sensitively. Not only consumers but scientists are passengers on the train. As has already been said in the debate, many scientists disputed the Dalton report.
Nevertheless—a point that I shall develop in more detail later in my speech—the Minister is lucky. At the back of the train that has raced out of the tunnel and is heading for him is a Pullman coach, in the shape of the United States national academy of science and its report, which he will be able to use if he wants to.
I first raised the vitamin B6 issue on 19 February 1997, and opened my speech by quoting a letter from the British Society for Allergy, Environmental and Nutritional Medicine. It was one of the many persuasive letters that I, like other hon. Members, have received on the matter. It stated:
Your ministry is planning steps which may lead to the deaths of thousands of people in the UK, and to substantial avoidable suffering for many others.
There is tremendous fear in the nation on the issue, which has generated the level of concern that we are witnessing. Very many people believe that their lives literally depend on vitamin supplements. The broader issue is that, in recent weeks, already 400 supplements or herbal medicines have been taken off the shelves.
The B6 issue is seen as a test. If B6 goes, so will vitamin C. Then another vitamin will go. There is constant pressure, all the way down the line, on alternative and complementary treatment. I believe that the situation is

quite mad. Demand for such supplements, herbal medicine, homeopathy and other alternative treatments is exponential, and the Department is completely out of line with public opinion.
On 30 July 1997, in an Adjournment debate, I raised the issue with the Minister. I told him that if MAFF wanted its post room to be full, he should do nothing about the issue. Although he wrote to me after the debate—for which I am grateful—I think that he completely misunderstood what I had been saying. He stated that clogging up hon. Members' postbags was a stupid thing to do. However, that is not what I had said—I had no intention of orchestrating a campaign. I was saying that concern among the public on the issue was so great that he could not expect the situation to disappear. It will not go away.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Letters to the Ministry are welcomed openly. Thousands of letters—no problem—are welcome. The point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman is that thousands of letters to my constituency secretary, who has to sort them out, clog up the process of dealing with my constituency work. That is the point that I was trying to make to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tredinnick: We had better not get stuck in the post room. However, I think that the points have been made.
Let us put the debate on vitamin B6 in context. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East has already described the beer situation. However, how many hon. Members had coffee this morning? How toxic is a large quantity of coffee? What about tobacco? Figures from the Library show that, last year, 120,000 people died from smoking-related diseases. Aspirin can now be bought over the counter in any supermarket. Last year, there were 37 deaths–31 from poisoning, and six from adverse effects—in England and Wales from aspirin and related compounds.
How many deaths have been caused by vitamin B6? I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter, which was answered by the Office for National Statistics. It revealed that, since July 1997, no one has died from vitamin B6. I tabled another question, asking the number of people who had died from vitamin B6 in total—over 20, 30 and 40 years. Unfortunately, the statistics go back only to 1993. The matter cannot be researched further back without —what is the phrase?—incurring unnecessary costs. However, the answers that I received show that no one—not a single person, despite the publicity—has died from vitamin B6. I wonder how many people have died of caffeine poisoning or of having too much tea—[Interruption.] We had better not pursue that line.
I once spoke in the Chamber for three hours, and nothing would give me more pleasure than talking for three hours on vitamin B6. However, my hon. Friends will be wilting if we pursue that route. I shall therefore restrict my remarks. I can see that the Minister would not be keen on hearing a three-hour speech—perhaps that applies to all hon. Members. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to filibuster, particularly on a subject of such gravity.
I am surprised that the Labour party has got itself into such a mess. One of the points stressed in the White Paper "Our Healthier Nation" is that Labour wants not only to


lengthen life, but to increase the quality of life. Labour wants to ensure that people have more quality years before they die. One of the ways in which the Government can accomplish that goal at very little cost is by encouraging vitamin supplements. The Government can go through a range of supplements on the shelves. All the statistics on people with diseases of the mind and the body point to alternative treatment as one of the great freedoms of the modern age, and one of the ways in which to rectify the problems that are caused in an increasingly polluted environment. It is a way in which to overcome those problems.
I cannot imagine how the Government could be so foolish as to miss that trick. I do not think that the Minister is foolish, and I hope that he will not miss the trick later on. If he comes into line with public opinion and now science, he will be richly rewarded—[Interruption.] I must have said something wrong—[Interruption.] I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are going to call the House to order. I shall continue.
An examination of the membership of the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment reveals that 15 of the 19 members have a declared financial interest in pharmaceutical companies. I must seriously ask the Minister whether he thinks that those minds will be independent if 15 out of 19 members—if not in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies, which have a vested interest in suppressing other remedies—have such an interest.

Mr. Hayes: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will be mindful of the contribution in the Select Committee of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on precisely that point? He said to the Minister:
It shifts the whole basis of supply from health shops to pharmacies, from one set of manufacturers to another".
That is the point that my hon. Friend is making, which has not been satisfactorily answered by the Minister, either in his evidence to the Select Committee or since.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who brings me to my next point. Consumer surveys show that, if the products were moved from health food shops to chemists, the market would be destroyed. It would not move, as many people resist going to chemists. A related issue concerns doctors, such as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). How will he feel when his surgery is clogged up with people asking for prescriptions for vitamin supplements? Doctors' surgeries are overflowing in any case. That is a problem for doctors and for the Secretary of State.
Reference has been made to Dr. Dalton's report; some time ago, I attended a committee meeting on the subject. Dr. Dalton was in the audience and the focus shifted to her. Under pressure, she got up and asked why the Department had not consulted her before using her report. It was an amazing allegation to make. Dr. Dalton told the meeting—basically people who did not agree with her—that the Department had not consulted her or asked her before using her report. Is it any wonder that the Secretary of State has got himself into such a tangle?
I conclude by referring to the report by the United States national academy of science, which is very thorough and is the most recent report available. The

Minister is jolly lucky because he does not have to put his hands up and say, "I made a mistake. I am going to change." He can say, "I accepted the science that was available at the time. It has now been superseded and I am going with the American science." So with one simple trick, he can get himself out of gaol and make everyone happy.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I shall not detain the House for long, but I am grateful for the chance to make a few remarks on the subject. I have the misfortune to be the closest thing in the House to an expert on the safety of substances that we take, being medically qualified and having worked in the pharmaceutical industry for a few years, with responsibility for submissions to the Committee on Safety of Medicines and others, and an intimate knowledge of drug toxicity studies.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), I do not take vitamin supplements. I suspect that my general dietary intake is quite adequate for all my nutritional requirements. However, I shall try to be as objective as I can on a subject on which there are one or two accepted facts and a great deal of opinion.
First, pyridoxine, or vitamin B6, is an essential dietary constituent; the recommended daily intake is approximately 1.2 mg. Secondly, in very high doses, pyridoxine is a poison which causes serious neurological symptoms. It is therefore quite right that the Government should decide what the safe recommended level for public sales should be.
I disagree with Opposition Members who have spoken so far. When we are considering pyridoxine as a dietary substance, it is quite proper for it to be on general sale and for people to be entitled to make up their own minds as to whether or not they take it. When it is used as a medicine, however, it enters a quite different world, and in those circumstances, it behoves us to regard it with much greater care.
The proposed limit of 10 mg a day, or 10 times the recommended daily intake, is perfectly adequate for all conceivable dietary needs.

Mr. Hayes: The Government themselves, in their draft regulations on the subject, define the product as a food supplement. To talk about it as a medicine would be like talking about orange juice enriched with vitamin C as a medicine. Of course medical claims may be made for it, but it is not a medicine. By the Government's own definition, it is a food supplement.

Dr. Moonie: At present, the Government are using accepted practice in their definition of the subject. That is why a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is replying to the debate rather than a Minister from the Department of Health. The Government are obliged to follow established practice until that practice is changed. It may well be that the Food Standards Agency, if it is given some say over such matters, will recommend different practice in future.
To return to the subject, 10 mg of pyridoxine is perfectly adequate to cover all dietary needs. When we start talking about the medical uses of the substance—we should not call it a drug, but we are effectively using it as one—and start indulging in self-medication, we are


obliged to pay careful attention to the potential ill effects of the substance, particularly when its effects are ill defined.
The hon. Member who opened the debate—I am sorry, but I have forgotten his constituency—

Mr. Keith Simpson: It is Mid-Norfolk.

Dr. Moonie: I knew that it was somewhere in Norfolk. I am glad that the Conservatives still have at least one seat there.

Mr. Simpson: We have four, actually.

Dr. Moonie: Good gracious! I am sure that that will not last for long.
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the penultimate paragraph of the Agriculture Committee report:
The evidence on the efficacy of vitamin B6 is inconclusive, and many consumers may experience a placebo effect rather than any actual health benefit.
The hon. Gentleman denied that the Committee said that, but he must accept it as the Committee's opinion.

Dr. Iddon: Is not my hon. Friend's point about vitamin B6 being used in a medical sense also true of hundreds of substances sold in health food shops? What would he say about that?

Dr. Moonie: I regret to say that the hon. Member for Bosworth was quite right. A great many preparations taken as so-called dietary supplements are being used as medicines and, if they are found to be toxic, they should be subjected to exactly the same standards as any other allopathic medication. This is the first of many instances in which we shall look a bit more closely at so-called folk remedies, and discover that they are much more toxic that we thought and should be subjected to the same standards. So 10 mg of vitamin B6 is safe, or 50 mg for prescription by a pharmacist, is a reasonable limit. Above that, the substance should be controlled. In my opinion, those are reasonable precautions for the Government to take.
Opposition Members made great play of beef on the bone as another example of the Government acting unwisely. As the matter has been raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), and it is an important analogy, let me digress for a moment.
The Government are in possession of evidence in respect of the potential effect on the human diet of consuming BSE-infected material. We are not at present able to identify with certainty what the risks are. The Government have a study that says that the upper limit for cases of CJD as a result of consuming BSE-infected material is 8 million. I do not for a moment believe that there will be that many deaths, but given that the Government have such a paper before them, they have to be careful how they behave.
In the case of pyridoxine, excessive use has been shown to be harmful and the basic dietary needs are very low, so again the Government are obliged to be extremely careful about the action that they recommend. Let us make no

mistake about it, if the study on BSE is proved right and if evidence eventually proves that pyridoxine is harmful, Opposition Members will be demanding the head of the Minister for exactly the opposite reason to the one for which they are demanding it today.

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): The subject of today's debate has attracted a great deal of attention from hon. Members of all parties. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Liberal Democrat spokesman on food safety, who unfortunately cannot be here this morning, and my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) have taken an interest in the subject from the beginning. Some of the key questions in the debate are the balance between safety and liberty, between safety and the commercial aims of those who manufacture the medicines, and between safety and the efficacy of any substance that is ingested or applied, whether for a nutritional purpose or for a purported medicinal purpose.
However, it is inappropriate to weigh safety against political considerations. Ministers acting on scientific advice should not make political decisions to win votes, but rather political judgments based on scientific evidence. For the same reason, the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) was unwise to call for ministerial resignations. It is inappropriate to try to make the issue a party political one. We heard much of control groups for comparison in the debate so far, but the only control group for the Minister to base his decision about his future is the record of the Conservatives, in which case he can feel confident about his decision. It is unwise for hon. Members on either side to engage in such a debate. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) adopted a more measured, persuasive and well-thought-out approach. I would correct the hon. Member on one point, however,
The Dalton and Dalton study did have a control group, but it was the wrong control group. The study suffered from being retrospective, with a control group that was not untreated and therefore not a pure control. Most scientists who write papers on such issues recognise the difficulty of obtaining good control groups. Hearing the criticism that the Dalton study has received, many will think, "There but for the grace of God go I," because of the great cost, time and practical difficulties of getting such studies perfect.

Dr. Moonie: I accept that retrospective studies are generally flawed. When some evidence has been produced to suggest that the drug is harmful, should not a prospective study be carried out with proper controls?

Dr. Harris: Absolutely. I was going to come to that. A great deal of parliamentary time and parliamentary Clerks' time has been expended on this controversial issue, where a line has to be drawn. Government money might be made available through existing research budgets, if not new ones, for a proper study, not just to remove difficulties in this case, but as an example of how a good study can be conducted into food supplements.


It is very difficult to conduct good research, which is so important, into medicines. I hope that the Minister will make representations to the Secretary of State for Health about the underfunding of research into many treatments. The NHS research and development budget has shrunk in the past two years, when issues of quality, as we have seen from tragic events in Bristol, and the proposal for a national institute for clinical excellence have pressed on the health service the need for good evidence for existing and proposed treatments. There but for the grace of God go all those who practise medicine. Again, that is open to criticism. Many medical treatments might not stand up to such scrutiny .

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman talks about taking further evidence. That option was available to the Minister and to COT. They chose not to commission further investigation or study, but to act on the existing study, which, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, was limited. I am disappointed that he has not picked up on that, and that his hon. Friends who he claims feel so strongly about the issue have not bothered to come today.

Dr. Harris: There has been a succession of Liberal Democrat Members on the Benches throughout the debate. They signed the early-day motions early, before others who felt that they ought to sign because of weight of numbers.
I do not know whether COT has the right or the funds to commission further research. I should be interested in the Minister's reply on that. The consultation phase might be extended to give time for a prospective study, which would not have the problems of the published studies.
It is difficult for a scientist such as Dr. Katharina Dalton to complain that her study is being looked at and ask to be consulted beforehand. Anyone who publishes in a scientific journal accepts, by virtue of their submission and peer review, that anyone can refer to it, as long as they do so fairly and accurately. It would not be right if people had to overcome the further hurdle of seeking permission before quoting such work.
The balance between safety and liberty is important. An assessment of the safety issues has to be made. This case is rather different from BSE, because here any adverse effects are recognised as reversible, certainly in terms of peripheral neuropathy. There would be time to reassess the issue later without inadvertently exposing fellow citizens to the risk of permanent damage from using a substance—I do not suggest that any Minister would do so deliberately. There would be time for further representations if reversible symptoms were found.
The difficulty of assessing the balance between safety and efficacy taxes the pharmaceutical industry every day. One reason why the price of many drugs is so high is that so much research has to be done to show efficacy because of the hurdles put in the way of marketing a drug for medical reasons rather than as a food additive. It is incumbent on those who make medical claims for what are currently recognised as food additives to ensure that there is evidence on safety. If I was a manufacturer of a food additive, I would be reluctant to make medical claims, because I might then have to provide research data, including possible animal studies and safety and efficacy studies—which are prospective and have to be controlled—as the pharmaceutical industry has to do.
I did not sign early-day motion 209 in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), because it makes claims that cannot be substantiated. It says that vitamin B6 supplements
are widely believed to be efficacious in a wide range of conditions"—
believed to be, but not proven to be, which is correct—
including, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, helping with the effects of pre-menstrual tension".
I was interested in that, because I had never heard of it as a treatment for pre-menstrual syndrome in my clinical years.
I wrote to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which found no policy supporting the claim. It sent me a copy of a letter from the college to Mr. Masterson-Smith, the chairman of Consumers for Health Choice, which said:
You state in a letter dated 17 July 1997 to a Member of Parliament"—
that is me—
that 'The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says that B6 supplements can help with conditions like pre-menstrual tension'.
The RCOG has never said that. The college supposed that the claim referred to a publication, "The Wellbeing of Women" by WellBeing, a charity that raises money for research into obstetrics and gynaecology. Even that publication, in a section entitled "What you can do to help yourself', said only:
Try a vitamin B6 supplement".
Those who make medical claims must take care, or those claims will be judged against medical criteria of safety and efficacy.
What lessons does the Minister feel should be learned? I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East that a Select Committee will consider how the Government take scientific advice. I myself have learnt lessons. My instinct as a clinician was not to sign any early-day motion that made claims on medical grounds and showed scepticism about scientific advice. Having read the report of the Agriculture Committee, I do now think that the wrong decision was made in the initial consultation. I believe that the majority of Liberal Democrat Members join me in hoping that the Government will change their opinion, taking into account the criticisms that have been made.
I want to deal with one or two of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), because many of them were spurious. One cannot use an analogy with tobacco. If that was a new substance coming into use, it would be banned in any quantity. We want to see greater efforts directed towards preventing new users of the substance. Representations are being made by all parties to the Secretary of State for Health on that matter.
Aspirin is a different issue also because it is a medicine and there are clear warnings about its use. There have been deaths from aspirin and it is a serious issue. The problem of iatrogenic illnesses and deaths from drug treatments is serious and has been raised on the Floor of the House during other debates. It does not help to draw spurious analogies with non-supplements.
It is not valid to claim that high-dose food supplements help the NHS by reducing the use of GPs so that they can be reserved for people with serious medical syndromes or


symptoms, or serious medical concerns. I believe that the role of members of the medical profession is to treat whatever comes before them and to reassure where necessary. There is a role for alternative treatments, if only as a placebo effect. That should not be denigrated, because it is a critical and helpful effect in medication. However, it should not be advertised as anything other than something that can help and can make people feel better without treating the cause.
I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the level of safety and risk versus people's right and freedom to make informed choices—all Liberal Democrats feel strongly about that. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that any Government announcement will have an impact on small businesses, which must be weighed in the balance. Also weighed in the balance must be the efficacy versus the likely risk. Party political considerations should not arise in the decision. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I should begin by making a general declaration of interest. I advise Novartis UK, which sells pharmaceutical products. However, as far as I am aware, it has no corporate position on vitamin B6.
It is clear from the Library briefing—which is as helpful as always—and from the Consumers Association survey that the overwhelming majority of consumers of vitamin B6 as a food supplement have been encouraged to believe that the product is helpful in dealing with pre-menstrual syndrome and some other problems.
The difficulty faced by the manufacturers and vendors of vitamin B6 is that repeated attempts by clinical trials to prove those effects have failed. Therefore, they are not able to market the substance with the claim that it is effective against PMS. However, they are dependent on the belief that it works to reach the level of sales that they do.
On the face of it, people suffering from PMS would do just as well by eating the Select Committee report. There is no clear evidence that vitamin B6 helps PMS at all. If that is true—it is accepted by the Select Committee—vitamin B6 should not be sold as a food additive if there is any significant risk of side effects. Since the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has advised the Minister that that is the case at dosages above 50 mg, he would have been failing in his duty if he had allowed such dosages to be freely available. The criticisms made by Opposition Members, who are seeking to make a party political point, are entirely misplaced.
The lobby to counter that straightforward argument has deployed a barrage of specious arguments, some of which have, unfortunately, persuaded the Select Committee to launch an attack on Government scientists. The Chairman of the Select Committee broadened that last night on BBC television into an attack on the judgment of all scientists. Perhaps we shall have the pleasure of seeing the Chairman on the "X-Files" in the near future.

Mr. Hayes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I am the only member of the Select Committee in the Chamber. Other members would have liked to be here,

but they are taking part in an investigation today. The Select Committee took a balanced view and produced a unanimous report. There was none of the extremism that he suggests and there was no party political malice because the majority of the Select Committee were Government Members.

Dr. Palmer: I accept entirely that that is true of the Select Committee report. However, the hon. Gentleman might agree that that has not characterised the speeches that we have heard today.
What claims has the lobby been making to make up for the lack of efficacy in dealing with PMS? First, the lobby said that many consumers say that the pills make them feel good. Well, whenever I hear a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I always feel good. The lucidity and logic of his arguments always makes me feel that life is worth living, even when he may be mistaken on a particular point. However, that does not mean that he should be taken in unlimited doses. We cannot base licensing policy on subjective impressions or anecdotal evidence. Any serious people working in this area accept that.
The lobby argues that, in a free society, consumers should be able to buy any product if the warnings are adequate. That belief is pushed by libertarian groups, which are widespread in the United States. They argue that even heroin or cocaine should be freely available as long as there is a clear warning. That belief is not accepted in that extreme form by hon. Members in the House of Commons, with the possible exception of the junior Opposition health spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Most hon. Members accept that we have to weigh up the ratio of efficacy to risk. In this case, there is no proven efficacy. The ratio of efficacy to risk is zero.
If we are fair, we have to say that the evidence on both efficacy and risk is open to dispute. That is probably the fairest way of summarising the evidence so far. The most reasonable policy is to suspend judgment until we have further evidence. For as long as we have no evidence that it works and there is suspicion that it does not work, the balance of the judgment must go against licensing.
The lobby's third line of attack has been to abuse members of COT and the Food Advisory Committee. We have all had letters attacking individual members of those committees — they have great difficulty in answering back—merely because, at some stage in their career, they have advised some company or group with which the letter writer did not agree. That is a weak point. The lobby needs to address the arguments, not individuals.
We have also seen the manipulation of public opinion. I have a copy of yesterday's Evening Standard. Paragraph two of its front page story says that the Government have proposed to ban the sale of vitamin B6 over 10 mg and that Members of Parliament have received 110,000 letters on the subject in recent months.
As we know, the Government are not planning to ban the sale of vitamin B6, but are planning to put dosages over 10 mg on prescription. Previous speakers have mentioned the 110,000 letters. I wonder who counted those letters. Does the post office steam open letters in the hope of finding a reference to vitamin B6? Are we seeing a count of constituents' letters coming in spontaneously? I cannot speak for other hon. Members,


but I have received just two letters from constituents—rather than those written by others—on this subject. What we are really seeing is the lobby's count based on the form letters that it has been pushing through health food shops. I concede that I have had such a package. I received 60 in one envelope—some were unsigned, some illegibly signed, some addressed to the wrong Member of Parliament, some to no Member at all and some were entirely blank, presumably just to make up the numbers. It is easy to reach 110,000 or 150,000 letters when one prints them all oneself and pushes them on customers.
In summary, we are talking about a food additive which has no proven worth for the uses to which it is being put, is dangerous at high doses and controversial at medium doses. The Government should confirm the scientific recommendations and reject the unscrupulous campaign, not only because of the dangers of vitamin B6 but because of the precedent. We must not create a grey area of risky and useless quasi-medicines sold as food additives. If a food additive does any good, let its manufacturers do what the manufacturers of vitamin B6 have signally failed to do—prove it.

Mrs. Angela Browning: A few months before the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), took responsibility for this matter, it was my responsibility as the Minister at the time. A few months before the general election, officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food together with officials at the Department of Health suggested to me and my colleague the then Minister of State at the Department of Health that we should take the action that the Minister announced in his draft regulations. We rejected the advice. It was a matter for ministerial judgment, and we did so because exactly the same science was put in front of us as has been put in front of him.
We instructed officials to ask COT to do further work and seek more up-to-date information, because there was clear evidence in the scientific community—evidence of which we were aware even as laymen, not as Ministers—that for such action to be taken it would require a lot more than the Dalton and Dalton research of 1987. We studied the papers and the advice.
I cannot help but think that, when the Minister sat down at his ministerial desk on 2 May, that issue was at the top of his heap of papers to be dealt with. I see that he smiles —he acknowledges it. I can tell him in all sympathy that, for ages, officials, particularly those in the Department of Health and not those in his Department—the Department of Health, where we find the last vestiges of the politically correct official —have been trying desperately to get Ministers to accept that package. I have some sympathy with him because, frankly, he was set up—I am sure of it. It was early days for him in a Ministry, and by 4 July he had issued his ministerial press release saying that he intended to take the official advice.
Although time is limited, I thought it important to put on the record the fact that that set of Ministers, presented with the same information as another set, took a different decision from that which the present Minister has taken. It is a matter of political judgment. Where there is conflicting scientific evidence I know only too well that it is difficult, but that is the job of a Minister—to sort out and to take professional advice. When we were Ministers,

we rightly demanded that further investigations be undertaken and further scientific evidence produced to support the case.
Interestingly, the report published yesterday by the Select Committee on Agriculture makes it clear that officials did not carry out the instructions of the former Administration. Written in the report for all to see, the paper identifies that COT did not query the result of Dr. Dalton's research, but used the exact same multiplier and formula that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) so expertly described as flawed. They challenged and questioned nothing. With an election coming and the slight possibility of a Labour Government, they knew that, if they sat it out, they could present a new Minister with the same proposal and he would accept it.
The Minister is carrying out a consultation. Never mind COT and the officials at the Department of Health, as an Agriculture Minister he must by now have had the opportunity to study the scientific evidence available to him. A full page editorial in The Lancet on the subject stigmatises COT's 10 mg recommendation as seeming to be based on the slimmest of evidence. Dr. Virginia Murray at the national poisons unit, who recently conducted a large study on the toxicity of vitamin supplements, said that it had not had a single report of side effects from vitamin B6, and that if there was a problem the unit would have expected to hear about it. When such people make open scientific statements, the Minister—COT or no COT—has a duty to call for more science before he takes a decision.
As has already been pointed out in the debate, if the Minister merely accepts without challenge or query what his officials or those at the Department of Health in particular put in front of him to sign, as has happened in this case, he will undermine public confidence in Government decision making. As a former Minister who sat at that desk for three years, I can tell him that he has until Friday for the end of his consultation to take place, and although he may not want to make that statement at the Dispatch Box this morning—I would be delighted if he did—I hope that he will use this as a valuable lesson in his early days as a Minister not merely to accept what is put at the top of his pile by officials who for years have been desperate to persuade Ministers to do something that is patently flawed as far as the science is concerned.

Mr. James Paice: First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on his good fortune in securing this debate, and the even greater fortune that it happened to follow the publication of the Agriculture Select Committee report.
This debate is about not merely science or the alleged benefits of vitamin B6—I do not know whether it works and, for the purposes of this debate, I do not really care—but about the role of Government in decision making, and particularly about this Minister. It has been suggested that we are using it as a party political issue, but it is not that; it is an issue of ministerial judgment. Of course, the Minister will say in his reply that he cannot allow unsafe foods on the market, yet he allows salt, peanuts and many other foods that are well known to cause negative reactions in some people.
We are discussing a vitamin supplement that has been taken regularly by, it is believed, up to 3 million people for many years, none of whom have died. There is ample


scientific evidence that significant levels of B6 can be taken, and, apart from one study, there is a consensus that up to 200 mg a day causes no harm—indeed, some people say up to 500 mg. Even if there is a reaction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk reported, it is what most of us would describe as pins and needles. More importantly, the reaction is totally reversible if the individual stops taking the tablets. Generally it seems that it requires a daily intake in the order of 2,000 mg before the symptoms become irreversible, so we are not considering an item with major health risks or one that could cause death.
The assessment of risk is critical. As we have discussed before in the Chamber, we all take risks. We get up, cross the road, and eat a wide range of foods. That is a part of life. We know that there is a possibility of injury or disease, but as individuals we judge whether it is an acceptable risk compared with the perceived benefits. The Government think otherwise. They seem to know best and people are not to be trusted with their own lives—we should rely on the nanny state to decide for us.
Why did the Government ignore the barrage of conflicting evidence, such as that from Professor Andre McLean, a former member of COT and former chairman of the British Toxicological Society? He said in his evidence:
COT … have raised issues of toxicity which seem to me to be entirely spurious.
Instead, they have relied on this 11-year-old study, which by their own admission uses flawed methodology and imposes a limit of 10 mg on foodstuffs. Apparently, they did not consider merely providing information about possible side effects. Indeed, the Minister had to write to the Committee and apologise for saying that the voluntary scheme had been rejected by the industry.
If the Government believed in choice, they could have opted for a compulsory labelling scheme, but they obviously do not. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why not. Will he also tell us what is to stop people taking two or more 10 mg tablets, which means it will be an unenforceable law, and that is bad law?

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Paice: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not, as we are pushed for time.
The Minister has refused time and again—in written answers and, on 18 November, in response to my formal request on behalf of the Opposition—to ask for a further review of the issue. That obstinacy would be excusable if he had taken the trouble to obtain further advice or had reviewed the evidence himself, but he did not. Indeed, he told the Select Committee that he was a production engineer. He went on to say:
What I did read was the document assembled by the COT secretariat on the evidence".
He said that he was asked
if I had read any of the hundred papers that COT had looked at. The answer to that is yes I had read more than two or three, but no more than …six.
That is a clear example of the Minister saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts—I have made up my mind on this subject."
In a letter to hon. Members on 21 August 1997, the Minister prayed in aid the fact that he had received support from an organisation called PMS Help, but he ignored the fact that the organisation is run by the daughter of Dr. Dalton, and that Dr. Dalton is, I understand, its patron. Worse still, he said:
The Committee reviewed over 100 publications from the scientific literature… The Government has every confidence in the rigour with which COT reviewed the data".
However, Professor Woods told the Committee, in his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is no longer in the Chamber:
what we looked upon as being the two key studies in this regard and that is the Dalton and Dalton paper … and also the dog study that Phillips and colleagues undertook.
When the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) put to him that
Your committee says the only human evidence that was relied upon was that contained in the Dalton and Dalton study",
Professor Woods answered,
Yes.
I submit that the Minister is, at the very least, confused. It is clear that the Dalton and Dalton study was the only human study to be taken into account. He will say that he must follow scientific advice—so he should. However, when he hears a barrage of criticism from many scientists, both in the United Kingdom and America, about the advice, I submit that it was his duty to question that advice, not only by asking COT to look again at the matter—which he refused to do—but by seeking a second opinion of the evidence. Instead, he displayed a cavalier attitude towards the facts.
The Minister must now reply. He stands damned by the Select Committee, which is, of course, dominated by Labour Members. Will he now withdraw the draft regulations? Will he invite Professor Woods, who also stands severely criticised by the Select Committee, to consider his position as chairman not only of COT, but of the newly appointed expert group on minerals and vitamins? In the light of the Minister's total failure to understand the depth of concern about his decision, does he realise that what is at stake is not only his integrity and reputation, but the reputation of the whole Government? Will he now consider his position?

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Notwithstanding the criticisms that hon. Members have felt it legitimate to make, no one has yet questioned my personal integrity on this matter, and I reject that allegation absolutely and without qualification.
This has been an interesting debate, and I was pleased to curtail my remarks to allow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) a few minutes in which to speak. As one of my predecessors, she was right to point to the interesting background to the case. That background was glossed over by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who quoted from a letter dated February 1997 about what the Government was allegedly doing to the health food industry without mentioning that that Government were the previous one.

Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way, as I do not have enough time.


The issue has been around for a long time. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton rightly said that it was not a top-of-the-tray issue, and that remains the case. The consultation process will continue until Friday. I told the Select Committee that I had an open mind, but not an empty mind, on the issue—that, too, remains the case. If I had to put food safety and public health issues as they are currently considered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a scale of one to 10, I would put bovine tuberculosis—the most serious animal health issue after BSE—at 10, and this issue at one.
COT did more work at the request of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, although she could, of course, have killed the matter stone dead and not resubmitted it to COT. It was then reconsidered by the Food Advisory Committee, and has since been considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. As I understand it, the Committee on Safety of Medicines has never agreed 100 per cent. with COT on any issue—indeed, even on issues of substance, it has taken a wholly different view; it is not a rubber-stamping body.
In this case, the Committee on Safety of Medicines went through a consultation process, as the draft regulations are proposed jointly by MAFF and the Department of Health. Products sold over the chemist's counter at dosages of more than 10 mg and up to 49 mg, such as my hay fever tablets, are perfectly okay but nevertheless have to be reclassified; at higher dosages, they have to be obtained through a doctor's prescription. I was interested that, in the story in yesterday's Evening Standard, a lady was quoted as saying that she wanted to be told what to take by her doctor, not by a bureaucrat. I think that she is absolutely right—as she has a health need, she needs to be dealing with her doctor.
As has been said, we are talking about food law, not medicine law. I freely admit that there is a gap in the regulatory system—food and diet supplements fall between the two stools—which is one reason why we set up the new expert group. The group will not rush to judgment—as we said when we set it up, we do not expect it to report for between 18 months and two years.

Mr. Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, I do not have time to give way.
There is an interesting cocktail of interests. As I told the Chairman of the Select Committee, Madam Speaker and the Leader of the House last Tuesday morning, I received a draft press release for issue yesterday from our

American cousins in the dietary supplement industry—going under the name the Council for Responsible Nutrition—the day after the Committee finished its work but before its report was published. In other words, the Committee's conclusions had travelled across the Atlantic and back again before the report was printed; embargoed like everyone else, MAFF saw the report only on Monday.
The cocktail of vested interests includes manufacturers and US scientists, and everyone seems to be citing those American scientists—no one has referred to the European Union scientists. In fact, we are being told by three of our European partners that our proposal for 10 mg is too liberal; they believe that we have the most liberal regime in Europe with the exception of the Netherlands. There are different scientific views within this country and between Europe and America. The Select Committee report comes down on one side of the argument—I do not say that as a criticism or that the report is one-sided.
As I said, there is a cocktail of interests and views, and our scientists are being abused left, right and centre—their integrity has been questioned again in this debate. As I said to the Select Committee, some of the scientists involved in the American work would not have been allowed in the room during the COT or Food Advisory Committee discussions, as their interests were so clear and specific that they could not have been party to the discussion.
In that context, I defend our regulatory system. Our use of scientific advice in policy making has been considered and okayed. Notwithstanding that fact, I still say, as I did to the Select Committee, that its report is a valuable contribution to proceedings. It is a useful report after a long inquiry; although the inquiry lasted only one day, much of that day was obviously spent on this matter, and I would not be so churlish as to say that only one day was spent in thinking about it.
Other reports may yet become available. On the last day of the Ministry of Agriculture's last big consultation, the number of doubled. I am not inviting the same on Friday, but we do not know whether that will happen. It would be churlish to make the announcement that hon. Members have invited me to make. That would go against all that I said to the Select Committee when I was asked what we would do at the end of consultation. I know that it is difficult for Ministers to be believed when they say that consultation on draft regulations is genuine, but it is the reality. Our consultation is genuine, and I cannot tell the House how we will proceed when it ends. We will deal with the cocktail of interests that has been assembled, and we will make our decision and announce it to the House as quickly as possible.

Rotherham and Mexborough

Mr. John Healey: I am glad to have the chance to debate a decision by the Office for National Statistics to abolish the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area, a decision confirmed last month. I hope to raise concerns about the statistical reliability of that decision, and to highlight its potential economic consequences. I hope to persuade my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that the ONS needs to do further work to overcome deficiencies in the data on which its decision was based so that a reliable review can be conducted later this year.
If the loss of our TTWA is confirmed, the area with the highest jobless rate in Yorkshire and Humberside, and with one of the highest rates in the United Kingdom, will be abolished at a statistical stroke. Unemployment stands at 10.2 per cent. in the Rotherham and Mexborough TTWA, and that will be hidden in the new Sheffield and Rotherham area, where the jobless rate is 7.5 per cent. Most seriously, the capacity for Rotherham and the Dearne to win badly needed UK and European funds for economic regeneration will be put in jeopardy.
The move is opposed by Rotherham council, by Rotherham chamber of commerce training and enterprise council, by Rotherham business link and by labour market analysts at Sheffield Hallam university and the university of Sheffield. In short, it is opposed by anyone who knows anything about historical and current labour market patterns in South Yorkshire. The move has no support from neighbouring local authorities, TECs or other agencies.
The ONS report on new TTWAs explains that the areas are important because they
link workplace with residence",
and they
enable users to gain a better understanding of how their area operates as a labour market".
They are also
often used to monitor labour market programmes from both a national and local perspective".
In other words, TTWAs are the principal unit for monitoring labour markets, and the most authoritative unit for measuring unemployment.
Regional selective assistance, the key Government fund for inward investment and local business growth, is based on TTWA jobless figures. Single regeneration budget 1, 2 and 3, rural development area status, rural challenge funds, city challenge funds and enterprise zone status are all UK regeneration programmes for which eligibility is heavily dependent on unemployment. Funds have been won from each of them in the Rotherham area over the past five years. European funding gives similar priorities to areas with jobless problems. Over the past 10 years, objective 2 funding, RECHAR and RESIDER have all provided funds for Rotherham that might not have been won without an accurate local unemployment measure.
I calculate that we have had around £100 million for regeneration from UK and EU grant programmes in recent years. We might not have won that money without our TTWA. I understand and accept that there must be statistical criteria to define travel-to-work areas. I understand and accept the two "self-containment"

criteria used to define them. However, I should remind the Minister and the officials of the ONS that a travel-to-work area is a means, not an end. The huge new Sheffield TTWA covers more than 750,000 people, four local authorities, two standard Government regions and a range of diverse communities. As such, it will be of limited use for policy analysis or formulation, and it will mask substantial variations in unemployment.
For those reasons, the new TTWA received strong criticism during the review of the TTWAs. The review was based on the 1991 census, as updated by annual census of employment figures. Rotherham and Mexborough TTWA comfortably met the demand side containment criteria of having 70 per cent. of jobs in the area filled by residents of the area. However, the ONS calculated that our supply side containment—the percentage of all employed residents of the TTWA who work in the TTWA—fell below the 70 per cent. threshold, at 66.4 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary kindly agreed to meet me in March to discuss my concerns. I was grateful for the opportunity to put to her two separate arguments. The first was technical: the figures on which the decision was based were outdated, incomplete and distorted by heavy job losses in coal mining and steel immediately after the 1991 census was completed. The second was economic: the decision will put at risk efforts to regenerate our area after the heavy loss of coal and steel jobs. My hon. Friend stressed her own and the Government's determination to make the ONS more independent of the political process, with the aim of restoring the credibility of Government statistics after years of their being devalued by misuse by the Conservative party. She invited me to deal directly with the ONS, and to develop a statistical and technical case.
I accepted that challenge, with the help of Chris Mallender, the assistant chief executive of Rotherham council, and Glyn Jones, director of Sheffield Hallam business school. I believe that that challenge was met. We had a series of detailed discussions with Steve Hickman, the senior ONS officer in charge of TTWA review, and we reached agreement on several significant adjustments to key data sets, and to the self-containment calculations.
We agreed that the census of employment figures was incorrect for five of the six major industrial sectors; employment in our TTWA had not reduced in the years following the 1991 census; and the closure of 10 local pits since 1991, and large job losses in the steel industry, significantly reduced out-commuting levels, thereby increasing our supply side containment ratio. More recent figures for business start-ups, job creation and inward investment show strong growth in the Rotherham and Dearne economy, which reinforces the trends that began to be established soon after the 1991 census.
Throughout our dealings with the ONS, and in the supplementary data that I have prepared, I have been very conscious of the ONS's concern that any case for the retention of our travel-to-work area will be closely and publicly scrutinised by others. At no stage, therefore, have we exaggerated our case or inflated any of the statistics. Based on that agreement, Mr. Hickman, in a fax dated 5 May, stated:
From these calculations, taking best estimates, the self-containment of the 1994 Rotherham and Mexborough area reaches 69.2 per cent.


That is less than 1 per cent. variation from the threshold and a level at which the discretion that Mr. Hickman had already made it clear the ONS could use should properly have been exercised. However, he continued:
This should ideally be 70 per cent. and I do not propose that the former Rotherham TTWA is reinstated.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I took this matter up under the previous Government. My hon. Friend has put forward much more convincing arguments in a statistical demolition of the Whitehall position, but it appears that no amount of facts will allow Whitehall to change its mind. As the Member for central Rotherham, I know that the borough of Rotherham, with its 250,000 people, is quite different economically and culturally from Sheffield. No other unit of 250,000 people in Europe would be merged with a wholly different giant city conurbation. I know that it is difficult for the Minister when she has to present her Department's line, but I ask her to reconsider and send some of the statisticians up to Rotherham to see for themselves. One good visit in situ is worth a thousand econometric and statistical analyses. This unacceptable decision will outrage everyone in the borough of Rotherham.

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend makes important points about the local identity of Rotherham and resistance to its being subsumed within a Greater Sheffield TTWA.
I was disappointed, dismayed and puzzled by the conclusions that the ONS drew, and by the decision to press ahead with the abolition of our TTWA, especially as there remain a number of unresolved data questions. First, there is the level of self-employment growth and the fact that no adjustment for commuting into the TTWA has been made. Secondly, there is the degree of growth in local jobs; further corrections of the census of employment data are required. Thirdly, new jobs created in our area have mainly gone to part-time women workers. The ONS confirms that such workers
tend to have shorter commuter distances".
Fourthly, there is the negligible impact of developments in the lower Don valley, particularly Meadowhall, which opened in September 1990 with a full complement of stores before the 1991 census was conducted. Fifthly, increasing local jobs growth and decreasing out-commuting are trends that have strengthened since the mid-1990s snapshot which we developed jointly with the ONS.
I have two fears if the abolition of our TTWA is confirmed. Technically, I fear that the ONS is committing itself to boundaries that relate to an historic labour market that was radically changed after the 1991 census by a profound one-off collapse of mining and steel. Economically, my fear is more serious. Rotherham's recent success in winning the lion's share of regional selective assistance, attracting large inward investors such as Ventura, with 1,750 new jobs promised for the Dearne, and in generating a rate of VAT registrations and business start-ups well above the national average, could be choked off. The technical exercise of redrawing travel-to-work area boundaries could have profound economic consequences for Rotherham and the Dearne.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I represent a seat wholly inside the borough of Rotherham. My hon. Friend

knows that much of my area is not covered by the Rotherham TTWA, while some parts are covered by the current Sheffield TTWA. I have evidence over many years of the disadvantage that I have had. The idea that the closed coal mining communities that I represent in the southern part of my constituency have anything to do with the economics of Sheffield city centre is farcical. It seems that the north of my constituency is to be as disadvantaged as the south has been for many years.

Mr. Healey: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
Will the Minister confirm what her senior official, Mr. Steve Hickman, at the ONS promised my colleague Chris Mallender: that the ONS will keep our TTWA under review for the next six months and will discuss with us further the deficiencies in the data? That is a constructive way forward and a proper approach if we are concerned both with the statistical integrity of our travel-to-work areas and with the economic purposes to which they are put. I hope that she will endorse that in her response.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on securing this debate on an issue that he has pursued with great vigour, and on his generosity in allowing the involvement of fellow local Members.
My hon. Friend made the case for reinstating the Rotherham travel-to-work area clearly. I am happy to agree with his final point that there should be further contact between the Office for National Statistics and him in further evaluation of the statistics. I shall deal with that in more detail later.
As the Minister responsible for the Office for National Statistics, I am glad to have an opportunity to explain the new travel-to-work area map and why it does not contain a separate Rotherham TTWA. I will also explain how the ONS intends to consult users about future statistical needs, and what statistics will be available for the Rotherham and Mexborough area.
I recognise that the closure of the coal mines and steelworks in the early 1990s in the Rotherham area will have affected commuting patterns and, potentially, the shape of the TTWA map. I say that with feeling, because my constituency is similar in its history of iron, steel and coal mining.
As my hon. Friend knows, TTWAs are designed to approximate to self-contained labour markets —areas where people not only live but work. As he said, the previous TTWA map was based on commuting patterns that were measured by the 1981 census of population. In 1981, Rotherham was sufficiently self-contained to be a TTWA in its own right. However, when commuting flows from the 1991 census were analysed, Rotherham was no longer sufficiently self-contained to meet the TTWA criteria, and formed a much larger TTWA with Sheffield.
That was true not only for Rotherham and Mexborough but for several 1981 travel-to-work areas. That reflected a general trend towards increased commuting and fewer TTWAs. To put the problem into context, TTWAs used to be the smallest areas for which the ONS published unemployment rates. That was because TTWAs were sufficiently self-contained to be regarded as local


labour markets. However, the ONS now publishes unemployment rates for areas that are much smaller than TTWAs, such as districts. That is in line with the new ONS approach to local labour market statistics, which consists of publishing information down to the lowest reliable level. The ONS is also investigating the feasibility of producing unemployment statistics that go right down to ward level, which will enable users to identify areas of high unemployment far more clearly.
That answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth about the unemployment in his area being subsumed in a more positive figure for the new overall TTWA. It is important to have accurate statistics at local level, which will enable my hon. Friend and the colleagues with whom he has worked so hard on this issue to make the case for economic development in the area. It might help to reassure my hon. Friend if I make it clear that labour market statistics for the 1981 TTWAs will continue to be made available for at least the next two years.
As my hon. Friend knows, when we jointly met the TTWA review leader from the ONS, we had a full and detailed discussion—indeed, my hon. Friend earned great respect for the reasoned way in which he argued his case. He argued that Rotherham was borderline, because the closure since the census of the steelworks and the coal mines outside the Rotherham boundary had affected commuting flows, and the self-containment criteria could now be met. We agreed that the case required further examination and that the ONS would work with Rotherham metropolitan borough council to evaluate whether the Rotherham and Mexborough area was now sufficiently self-contained to meet the TTWA criteria.
I understand that my hon. Friend and the assistant chief executive of the borough council subsequently met ONS officials and supplied further information, and I am informed that the ONS examined it in some detail. However, the ONS had to conclude that there was still insufficient evidence to demonstrate that commuting flows had changed significantly enough for Rotherham to meet the self-containment criteria. That is why Rotherham and Mexborough could not feature as a separate TTWA on the recently published map.
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about his area. Every Member of Parliament has a particular responsibility to his or her constituency, but I am sure that he will recognise the importance of the ONS maintaining a consistent approach and treating all users equally. For that reason, any change to the draft boundaries that did not comply with the ONS decision criteria—however marginal the deviation might be—would need to be supported by clear and incontrovertible statistical evidence to maintain the integrity of the map. In the case of Rotherham and Mexborough, the ONS had to conclude that the statistical evidence did not meet the criteria to which it works.
That is not the end of the process. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the ONS is continuing to listen to the views of users on the new TTWAs and the need for local area statistics. I know that the ONS and Rotherham metropolitan borough council are continuing to investigate data on current commuting flows. The ONS is also working on providing a wider range of data, including unemployment rates, for local authorities and for even smaller areas, possibly even wards. It is intended that, over the next few months, the ONS will listen to user reaction to the new map and work with users to address their statistical needs. Any proposal for changes to the map has to be considered in the context of what positive and negative feedback on the boundaries is received, what other statistical information becomes available and how users' needs develop.
I am happy to give my hon. Friend an undertaking that the ONS will again meet my hon. Friend, once a further six months of statistics have been collected, to allow further evaluation. I hope that that answers his point about outdated statistics. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that there is at least one meeting in the diary for next week to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth to meet officials of the ONS. I am sure that the ONS would be happy to arrange as many meetings as necessary. The geographical location of those meetings is up to the officials and to the hon. Members involved.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that offer. I commend him for his diligence and expertise in respect of this matter and congratulate him again on securing the debate. The diligence with which he, his local authority and Sheffield university have pursued the case, and the rigour with which they have argued it, do great credit to all of them. I hope that my colleagues in the ONS will be able to meet them and allay their fears.

Parachute Regiment

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I thank the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for concluding her remarks so swiftly, thereby enabling me to have a little more time.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the Parachute Regiment, which is based at Aldershot. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that it will be in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Minister is perfectly happy for him to do so. I should also mention that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), a former marine commando, is greatly concerned about the issues I am about to raise, although he is unable to be in the Chamber at the moment.
Last Friday, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales presented new colours to the Parachute Regiment on the green open space of the Queen's Parade at Aldershot. It was a truly memorable event, as a glorious English summer's day combined with a splendid military pageant, which itself bore a spiritual dimension. The Paras were indeed
Furnish'd and burnish'd by Aldershot sun",
as John Betjeman might have put it, but there was one cloud casting its shadow over those marvellous proceedings. If rumours now rife in the camp are true, last Friday's could turn out to be the last parade of the Parachute Regiment in Aldershot. Those rumours have it that, under proposals in the strategic defence review, the regiment, which has been based in Aldershot for most of its 56-year history, will move to Colchester.
I shall address two issues: first, the role of the Parachute Regiment and, secondly, its location. In discussing the first, let me make it absolutely clear that I do not seek to be the mouthpiece for the regiment; that would be to claim an authority that I neither possess nor seek. However, I do speak for the town of Aldershot and its citizens, who include both regular and territorial soldiers.
The Paras are an unashamedly elite regiment. Like their counterparts elsewhere, in the words of Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins:
They possess a glamour, an aggressive self-confidence and toughness that earn some suspicion and jealousy from other units.
In the British Army, the Parachute Regiment has never been universally popular, but it carries before it an awesome reputation. As Hastings and Jenkins continue:
Even in peacetime soldiering, most senior officers are conscious of the value of a unit which, when it is needed, is needed very badly indeed: to attempt the impossible.
Nowhere was that more dramatically and heroically demonstrated than in the Falkland Islands, where the Paras walked across inhospitable terrain to attack the enemy from behind, which had never been expected by the enemy and which no one thought ordinary soldiers could do. The Parachute Regiment did it.
The Parachute Regiment forms the key element in 5 Airborne Brigade, one of the two core brigades of the United Kingdom's joint rapid reaction force, which was established just two years ago. Along with their support

units, which include 7 Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, 9 Parachute Squadron Royal Engineers, the Parachute Logistics Battalion and the Parachute Field Ambulance, the Paras provide the main element in a light brigade that is maintained at a high state of readiness and able to move at 24 hours' notice.
Although all three battalions are trained to drop by parachute, that training merely provides one option for delivering the force, as they demonstrated at Goose Green and Mount Longden. The fitness of the Paras and the culture of the regiment combine to make them a fearsome force, regardless of the means by which they arrive at the battle zone. Those attributes apply not only to the infantry, but, in equal measure, to the airborne support units that keep the regiment going.
The rumours suggest that the Government want to amalgamate 5 Airborne Brigade and 24 Air Mobile Brigade, with the new brigade to be based at Colchester where 24 Air Mobile is currently located. I see that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is now in his place.
The rationale, as I understand it, for consolidation at Colchester is that the troops need to be located close to their new attack helicopter, which I understand is intended to be based at Royal Air Force Wattisham. There can be no doubt that the introduction of the Apache attack helicopter, with its unique Longbow radar, will constitute a formidable addition to our armoury and a significant boost to our rapid reaction force, providing that the Royal Air Force has the heavy lift capability to move it into theatre.
The amalgamation of the two existing brigades must not be undertaken as a cost-cutting measure if it means that existing capability is in any way to be impaired. It will not be enough for the new formation to have one battalion group with parachute capability. It must continue to have a full, rounded capability, including its airborne headquarters and its current joint capability to direct the force and to operate fully integrated with the Royal Air Force. It must also be assured of the endless practice that makes for its immediate deployability. One of the things that make the Parachute Regiment and the airborne forces so important to the Government is that they can rely on them because they are such a highly trained organisation. They have plenty of time to ensure that they are up to speed and ready to move at a moment's notice.
Critics of the Parachute Regiment argue that, because the last time it dropped into a battle zone was at Suez in 1956, parachuting into battle is somehow out of date. It was that scepticism which led to the disbanding of the 16 Independent Parachute Brigade in 1977. The following year, the French sought our support for the deployment of a parachute force in the Kolwezi operation in the Congo. To Britain's embarrassment, we were unable to deliver. As a result, the policy was reversed and the United Kingdom's parachute force was reinstated.
The new parachute enables troops to be dropped from as low as 250 ft. We are not talking about exposing troops necessarily to the risk of dropping from 1,000 or 1,500 ft. We have the technology to deliver them from a height of 250 ft.
Many other nations have parachute regiments, but only a handful—the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France and Israel in the west—hav00e a genuine airborne capability. For example, the United States


employed its parachute regiment in Grenada and Panama. It is vital that we should not make the same mistake as was made by a previous Labour Government in 1977.
It is because airborne forces attract the adventurous and the determined that they, together with their brothers in the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade, are elite forces. Their availability for rapid deployment provides the Government of the day with a powerful weapon. As they are a force to be feared, even the threat of their deployment can enable the Government to make a tough political statement.
Currently, there are two parachute battalions in role. My understanding is that they will be reduced to one battalion. More seriously, I understand that the Government plan to axe the airborne support capability—the ability to launch an airborne force, whether delivered by parachute or by tactical air-land out of the back of a C130 Hercules, comprising not only infantry but the other airborne units that I have mentioned, such as medical, logistics and artillery support, which make up 5 Airborne Brigade. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the rumour is unfounded.
Can the Minister assure the House that, in reducing from two brigades to one, the new brigade will be properly resourced to enable it to do the same job as is currently undertaken by the two existing brigades? Can the Minister also assure me that the close integration with the RAF will continue? At present, three RAF officers are committed to 5 Airborne Brigade, demonstrating effective use of "jointery"—an extremely ugly word but one which the Minister has come to understand, as we all have.
Can the Minister also assure the House that airborne forces will retain a strong Territorial Army element? For example, are the TA Parachute Battalion, which is part of the Regular 7 Parachute Battalion Royal Horse Artillery, and the Parachute Medical Squadron, which is part of the Regular Parachute Field Ambulance, to be retained? The House will know that 4 and 10 TA Battalions are able to reinforce the regulars in time of need. I understand that 40 TA Paras are currently on operational service and that, in the past year alone, 25 have joined the regulars. The TA airborne forces are providing a tremendous resource for the Government in the reinforcement of the regulars and providing a source for new recruits for the Regular Army. I understand that the regular force could not operate without TA surgeons and anaesthetists.
I turn to the location of the new formation. As the Member for Aldershot, I wish on behalf of the town to protect its reputation as the home of the British Army. Those who have travelled in the area will know that one cannot approach the town without seeing signs that proclaim the identity of the town and its proud heritage as the home of the British Army.
I entirely acknowledge that those who join Her Majesty's forces accept that they are likely to be moved around. However, as I am sure the Minister will accept, because the Parachute Regiment and airborne forces have been located at Aldershot for many years, many soldiers have settled in and around the town, which has become the home base for the Paras. The town and the garrison have worked together to achieve a harmonious relationship. Indeed, I can give the hon. Member for Colchester some advice should disgraceful rumours

become fact. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the publicans of Aldershot have developed a fine art in servicing the needs of the Paras without putting the civilian population at risk. I am not sure what training the publicans of Colchester might need to achieve the same success.
As the Aldershot News has declared, Aldershot is the spiritual home of the Paras. They have become an integral part of the local military and civilian scene. I know that the Minister will understand that, because I know that he has good connections with some of my colleagues, although not of my political persuasion, in the town. I think that the Minister knows also that, in speaking for the town, I not only speak for the Conservative interest but represent those of other political persuasions who share my concerns.
If I am to make a case for the Parachute Regiment and the airborne forces maintaining their presence and their base in Aldershot, it is incumbent on me to advance reasons. Clearly, I am not a military man; I am a politician. However, I believe that there are some clear practical issues that militate in favour of retaining the presence in Aldershot. I shall list my reasons for the Minister.
First and foremost, we have a long tradition and history of the Parachute Regiment being based in Aldershot. Although it is true that the accommodation for 2 Para has been condemned by health and safety and other authorities, and ought to be removed at the earliest possible opportunity, we have the facilities to contain a light brigade at Aldershot. With all the work that is being done to invest in new facilities in the military town, there is no good reason why the infantry should be moved out of Aldershot.
Secondly, we have close at hand—within a mile of the town–7,500 ft of first-class, usable runway at Farnborough aerodrome. Although the operation of the aerodrome has been handed over to TAG, that facility would be available in a national emergency. That is an important and valuable facility to have located so close to the troops.
Thirdly, moving a few miles west from Farnborough, the support helicopters are based at Odiham. The Chinooks could be used for carrying the troops into theatre. That would be a splendid place for attack helicopters to be located. If there is no room at Odiham, a few miles further north there is Royal Air Force Benson in Oxfordshire, which could be available for the same facility.
Moving west again, the fourth reason is that all the helicopter training of the Army Air Corps is based at Middle Wallop. That is another facility which fits into the integrated package of a new kind of air cavalry that the Government want to create and to which my hon. Friends and I have no objection in principle. That facility is within close striking distance of Aldershot.
Fifthly, as we move further across the map, Boscombe Down has a huge runway and airfield facility which could be available in time of need. Currently, the Empire test pilots training school is there, and much flying evaluation is carried out. Moving west, we also have RAF Lyneham and Brize Norton, which are the trooping stations for deploying our troops out of the United Kingdom to the theatre of operation. Yet further west lies Salisbury plain, with all its extensive training facilities.


I understand that the present arrangements are that the airborne forces assemble at the South Cerney mounting base in Gloucestershire before deploying from Lyneham in Wiltshire. If they were to be located in East Anglia, that would greatly increase the journey time west to the mounting base at South Cerney and thence to the airfield at RAF Lyneham. As the Minister will know, it would mean negotiating the M25, so I hope that the deployment would not take place in rush hour, because our intervention force might be delayed outside the 24 hours in which it claims to be able to respond.
That is a practical consideration which needs to be taken into account. In that connection, I suggest to the Government that, as they retain some ownership of land at the Farnborough site, they should organise a mounting base there, perhaps by means of a private finance initiative proposal to build a facility there, close to the Aldershot base.
As we know, the Government's policy is to reorganise Britain's defence forces at no extra cost, although none of us knows when the review will see the light of day—not even, I suspect, the Minister, although he may enlighten us today. By moving 5 Airborne Brigade from Aldershot, the Government will incur substantial additional costs. I have advanced clear operational grounds for retaining the new formation west of London.
If Ministers can advance incontrovertible reasons for basing our airborne forces elsewhere, the people of Aldershot will want to know what alternative proposals Ministers have to ensure the continued role of the garrison town. Rumour has it that an armament brigade is to move to Aldershot. That would present certain problems that I shall not go into today. However, I say to the Minister that, if another brigade is to replace 5 Airborne, it will, of course, receive a warm welcome. My case today has been to advance the cause of retaining 5 Airborne and our airborne forces in Aldershot.
I am immensely proud to be associated with Britain's airborne forces. They are among the very best in the world. They are truly elite forces, excelling at what they do best. They do so because they are driven not by the commercial ethos of an ICI, but by loyalty to the Crown and a commitment to defend our country and our interests world wide and, ultimately, they are prepared to lay down their lives for those causes. The fact that they provide half the recruits to the SAS is testimony to what the Prince of Wales described last Friday as
the professionalism, toughness and courage
of the men of the Parachute Regiment. In their short history, they have brought enormous credit to our country. They represent a powerful weapon on which any Government can rely. I should like them to remain in Aldershot.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on his excellent speech. I have an interest to declare as a former airborne soldier whose father jumped at Suez.
We all recognise that there is merit in bringing together the airborne ethos with the striking power of the Apache helicopter. The challenge will be to maintain the ability to strike anywhere in the world in a matter of days. In 1978, not only did the French Paras jump into Kolwezi, as my hon. Friend said, but Israeli Paras struck at Entebbe

by air landing. Both were highly successful, lightning operations. Retaining that strategic speed will be a considerable challenge, because transporting the logistic tail of the Apache is a colossal undertaking.
There are three tests for a successful marriage. First, will the new headquarters be based around 5 Brigade, the hard-won centre of excellence, with its ability to mount air moves by a variety of means in a matter of days? In the Gulf war, within only a week, the 81st US Airborne had established a substantial footprint in Saudi Arabia. Our own much-vaunted 24 Air Mobile Brigade took several months just to get to Bosnia. This is not an issue about the tactical use of parachutes versus helicopters; it is about the incredible complexity of planning and executing rapid strategic air moves, which only 5 Brigade can do.
Secondly, will the new brigade include the excellent supporting units that my hon. Friend mentioned—the 9 Parachute Squadron Royal Engineers, the 7 Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery and the Parachute Logistics Battalion, in which every soldier is hardened by P Company training? It is a measure of their excellence that one brigade should provide half the successful applicants to the 22 SAS Regiment.
Finally, to maintain enough RAF Hercules crews in trim to move a battalion group, it is necessary to have three or four times as many soldiers who parachute regularly. Will the final order of battle of airborne units, both Regular and TA, be sufficiently large to guarantee the regular practice needed to maintain the RAF's very complicated formation air-dropping skill? That lapsed in the 1970s, when, to our shame, Britain was unable to strike at Kolwezi with the French and Belgians. I am sure that no British Government want to see that again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on securing this debate, and on his thoughtful and wide-ranging speech. It is always good to hear that an ardent Thatcherite recognises the ethos of public service in comparison with a solely commercial ethos. I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on his brief, but equally well-thought-out, speech. It is good to hear how much the regiments of the British Army are valued by the communities in which they reside.
I hope, in the time available, to respond to most of the points that were made, but I will be pleased to write to the hon. Members to deal with any remaining points.
I partly congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot on his timing. The Minister for the Armed Forces, who could not be present today, attended last week's presentation of new colours to the regiment—which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to—and, with them, its most recent battle honours; in that sense, it is appropriate that we debate the regiment's future.
As the hon. Member said, the battalions of the Parachute Regiment are famous for their commitment, their skills and their high training standards. The regiment is among the youngest regiments of the British Army, but, if its history is short by the standards of other regiments, its battle record certainly stands comparison with any. Its history is very much a history of our times, especially the desperate nature of many of the actions in which the regiment has been involved—a feature, perhaps, of parachute operations, to which I shall return.


However, it is also relevant and of interest that the regiment was born as the result of a political initiative—a direct instruction from Winston Churchill in June 1940, which gave life to War Office plans which were, at best, in embryo. We are often told that politicians should not interfere in matters that are best left to generals, but the success of the regiment over the years shows that that is not necessarily so. Perhaps we may take that as a good omen for the defence review.
I began by partly congratulating the hon. Member on his timing. However, if his timing had been slightly better, I might have been able to say more than I can today. The future of the Parachute Regiment, as of all the armed forces, has been examined in the strategic defence review. I emphasise, as we have done many times from the Dispatch Box, that, in the review, we have gone back to the very basics. With very few exceptions, declared at the outset, we have taken no aspect of our force structure for granted. We started from scratch. Our conclusions on the full range of defence issues have been submitted by the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister and Cabinet for collective decisions, which we expect very soon.
I am sure that the House recognises, therefore, that, at this stage, it is very difficult for me to go into great detail on the future of any elements of Britain's defence capability. I can say that the defence review has recognised the importance of mobility and of our ability to deploy forces rapidly to areas of crisis, and that we have thought carefully about how we might tackle situations in which no friendly port or airfield is immediately available. In fact, few areas in the defence review have received closer study.
The ability to deploy force quickly in the early stages of an international crisis can be crucial. Such forces can have a military and political impact well beyond the size of the units deployed. There is no faster way of deploying units to a combat zone than by air—especially if there are long distances to travel. In such circumstances, where there is no suitable airfield in friendly hands, the best way to land may be by parachute. Obviously, therefore, we need to retain a parachute capability. The question that confronts us, which the hon. Member for Aldershot rightly identified, is how big that capability should be.
By definition, airborne forces must be lightly equipped. Lightly equipped means potentially vulnerable. History is full of examples of airborne forces suffering heavy casualties in the face of determined opposition. Therefore, the circumstances in which we would be prepared to risk deploying forces by parachute will inevitably be constrained.
Aircraft are an expensive way of moving troops, and even light troops demand a lot of aircraft. Whatever strategic-lift assets we have will be in heavy demand at the outset of a major operation. To dedicate enough resources to allow an airborne landing for a full brigade would almost certainly have significant penalties for our military capability elsewhere.
However, the picture that I am painting is not a bleak one for the Parachute Regiment. Undoubtedly, as we all recognise, warfare and circumstances are changing, and our forces must change with them. New equipment offers new opportunities, and could profoundly affect our tactics and battle plan. For example, as the hon. Member said,

the attack helicopter is due to enter service in 2003, promising to bring unparalleled flexibility and firepower to the battlefield. It is a formidable enhancement of power and the ability to project that power.
I mentioned the vulnerability of light forces. Two ways of reducing that vulnerability are to increase their mobility and to increase firepower. That is one reason why we have been developing the concept of a formation that combines the advantages of our airborne forces—which were rightly identified by hon. Members—and the attack helicopter. Such a formation could be a key part of our plans for rapid but effective deployment of force in future. It would offer an exciting, challenging role at the cutting edge of military technology. It would demand all the very best qualities of the best of our forces.
I cannot yet say that we shall do that, but I can say that, if we were to take that route, the Parachute Regiment could play a major role, drawing on its historic strengths and ethos. Whatever the outcome of the review, it is clear that the requirements for rapidly deployable air-minded forces will continue.
The second question that the hon. Member rightly raised was whether the parachute battalions based in Aldershot could be located elsewhere as a result of the review. Obviously, that is a matter of keen and legitimate interest for him and for the town—as it is for us—because it touches on the relationship between his constituency and the Regular Army. It is Aldershot's proud boast to be the home of the British Army. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that I have also received representations from the Labour group on Rushmoor borough council; I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the group on working together to advance the interests of their constituency.
I hope that the hon. Member will understand, once again, that I cannot give a full answer to his question. There is a limit to what I can say at this stage about the detailed consequences for the location of individual units. The review has been primarily about the size and shape of the armed forces in all services. On that, as I have said, we hope to announce soon the decisions that have been taken.
Even if those decisions affect the Parachute Regiment, it will be some time before we can say with certainty whether the two battalions in the hon. Member's constituency will be affected in the way that he describes. I do not expect that we shall be able to take decisions about the possible location of units before the autumn.
However, it is normal practice to ensure that units are located with, or within a reasonable distance of, others with which they are linked for operational purposes. That is especially important for elements of the Army that must be at relatively high readiness. That means, for example, that units within a single deployable brigade will generally be located in the same area. If they are not, it becomes difficult to exercise effective command of the brigade, as I am sure the hon. Member recognises. We try where we can to ensure that units are placed close to where they can train. For those reasons, we would expect those who plan these matters to want to locate the two parachute battalions with, or near to, other units within whichever brigade they are part of after the review.
It is important not to see the issue as one of the Parachute Regiment in isolation. There are likely to be a number of moves as a consequence of the strategic


defence review. I can assure the hon. Member that it is highly unlikely that there will be a significant diminution overall of the Army's presence in Aldershot. Units may come and go, but Aldershot will remain among the most important of the Army's garrisons. The Army will need the infrastructure and access to training areas that the garrison affords. Not least, it will enjoy and value the long-standing good will of the community. I can reassure the House that the relationship between Aldershot and the Regular Army will continue for many, many years—the hon. Gentleman gave many of the reasons why that should be so.
The hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned the Territorial Army parachute battalions. We have great respect for their qualities, but I am sure that the hon.

Gentleman realises that it is not possible to make pronouncements about one of the elements of the Territorial Army while the future shape of the Territorial Army as a whole is being considered.
The history of the armed forces is one of evolutionary change while building on the best of our traditions. We no longer deploy the cavalry on horseback, but the ethos and traditions of the cavalry regiments remain. There is no doubt that the Parachute Regiment will remain as a potent element of our armed forces, but to ignore the need to modernise and to adapt to the demands of the battlefield of the next century would be to risk undermining the regiment's effectiveness and, ultimately, its future.

Immigration (Domestic Violence)

Ms Margaret Moran: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue of long-standing concern: the unique and often terrifying position of women suffering from domestic violence at the hands of their spouses, on whom they are totally dependent for their right to reside in this country. In 1995–96, a survey by Southall Black Sisters found 512 black and migrant women in such a situation. There are no current figures, but evidence from law centres and refuges around the country suggests that, while known numbers are relatively small, for obvious reasons which 1 shall outline, the problem, sadly, is still with us.
Domestic violence is a crime and an outrage whenever and wherever it occurs, and it cannot be tolerated, but the situation for such women is immeasurably worse. Theirs is truly the silent scream. For them, the choice is stark, and, at its worst, is continuing abuse and violence or deportation. I do not need to remind hon. Members of the horror of domestic violence, or of its effect on women in this country.
I worked for a housing association for more than 13 years, and dealt with women who were fleeing domestic violence. I was also involved in campaigns on the issue for many years before that, and saw far too often the way in which domestic violence affects women and their children. Women experience constant terror of doing something—anything—that might set him off, and do not know when or why that might happen. They fear for their children, for themselves and for their self-worth, and fear that the neighbours or the family will hear what is happening. They experience fear and guilt over and over, until all that remains is a bruised body with the inner self sucked out of it.
It takes courage to run, but there are far too few places to run to, and they are struggling to get by. Where could these women run to? Newly arrived in this country, they may have to cope with a strange language, a strange country, a strange family and strange institutions. In addition to the fear of violence, they are in constant fear of almost certain deportation if they speak out or seek help.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has a long-standing interest in this issue, not least because he, too, was impressed by the evidence given by Southall Black Sisters to a Home Office inquiry on domestic violence. Happily, he is now in a position to ameliorate the worst effects for women faced with this dual dilemma, and I am sure that he will want to act to demonstrate the Government's commitment to making zero tolerance of domestic violence a reality.
It would be remiss not to applaud the work that my hon. Friend, his colleagues and the Ministers for women have done in the short time since taking office. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women is on the Front Bench today. As the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), said in a recent speech, action to tackle domestic violence that has been taken so far includes a commitment to core funding to the Women's Aid Federation and to women's refuge spaces, money for training, facilities in refuges,

and an extra £31 million for Victim Support. I welcome the forthcoming strategy to tackle violence against women being developed by the Ministers for women.
The Government have shown, in contrast to their predecessors—none of whom, sadly, is in the Chamber to hear this—that they consider domestic violence to be a widespread problem which needs to be tackled swiftly. We urgently need to improve the scant and uneven resources and remedies available to abused women. When 25 per cent. of violent crime is by men against their women partners, and 48 per cent. of murders of women are by current or former partners, no one should underestimate the extent of the task we all face, but many of the sources of advice and help available to women are effectively denied to women with immigration problems.
Many such women cannot turn to state agencies, because of language difficulties or because they fear the agencies' role in relation to immigration rules and that their spouse may threaten to get them deported. The one-year rule places them in an invidious position. A woman arriving in the United Kingdom as a spouse will be given temporary right to remain, which remains temporary for 12 months, when she is required to apply for indefinite leave to remain. If the marriage breaks down within that period, she is required to leave. If she does not, she faces deportation.
These women face a stark choice. Luton law centre, which should be commended for its professional approach to dealing with legal problems in my constituency, has informed me that clients often stay in appallingly violent relationships rather than risk deportation. That cannot be right, but there is no doubt that that rule creates a power imbalance which violent men clearly exploit.
Women become reluctant even to report the violence, for fear of deportation. Luton law centre has told me of a current case in which a Bangladeshi woman will not report her husband' s violence or even seek medical help for her injuries because she is so afraid of the effect on her immigration status. That is compounded when women and their children are terrified to return to their countries of origin, where they may face discrimination or even persecution from their families and communities—sometimes, sadly, with state support.
Divorced or separated women may be considered to have "defiled" the honour of their families, and may face destitution or worse. No wonder that Luton Women's Aid has been contacted by three women in such a situation in the past six months, all of whom have either stayed in this country or returned to violent relationships. Their temporary status does not allow them to have recourse to public funds, and inability to afford a refuge place can compound that decision, although refuges such as Luton Women's Aid work hard to raise funds to assist women in such circumstances.
We also have evidence that women are kept in ignorance of their legal rights and the need to apply for indefinite leave. Hon. Members should consider the situation of a women in my constituency, who married and moved to this country, only to discover her husband's progressive violence—including, on occasion, violence against the children. Eventually, the abuser was arrested and charged with common assault. He was bailed, but so terrified was my constituent that she fled with her children, and little else, to a refuge. Her family in her


country of origin has ostracised her, and she fears to return. Her children have been traumatised—the more so now that she has been told that she may be deported.
What is my constituent to do? What is to become of her children? The options are losing them to care, or returning to fear and the involuntary deportation for her youngest, British-born child. She has no source of income, and relies on help from the refuge and emergency social services payments. The sad fact is that our immigration rules say that she must go if her marriage had broken down before an application for right to remain had been made. She can appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use his discretion outside of the immigration rules, but Luton law centre has told me that, in its experience, not a single approval to remain has been allowed since September 1995.
The chances for such people are slim, because the rules do not allow the reasons for the ending of the relationship to be taken into account. Although there are limited rights of appeal, that process can consider only whether the Home Office followed immigration law. If it decides to deport such a women, as in my constituent's case, there is no meaningful right of appeal unless she had been in this country for seven years.
Our system takes no account whatever of the fact that a woman may have fled violence and abuse, for her own sake and that of her children. We cannot be telling such women that they have no right to security against domestic violence in this country—that surely cannot be the message we are sending them. In a civilised society, are we really telling women that they have no right to protection against violence?
I have outlined in some detail the dilemma which women in this situation face, because I believe that to understand their problems and fears will help us to formulate the good policy needed to end the sad, stark choices those women face.
What are the options? Southall Black Sisters are to be commended for their work in respect of proposals for changes to the one-year rule and levels of evidence required in such cases. I hope that the Secretary of State will fully recognise the difficulties that these women have in seeking recourse against violent men in the courts. It is a difficult decision for any woman to go to law, but more so for women in this situation. Requirements for evidence in these cases, which risk exacerbating a violent situation, could be counter-productive. I know that some solicitors advise women, in good faith, not to pursue civil proceedings, in order to avoid worsening an abusive domestic situation.
As the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in its 1993 report on domestic violence, said:
Neither the criminal nor the judicial statistics will ever prove a full picture of the incidence of domestic violence since many victims will neither report the violence to the police nor take action in the civil courts.
How true, and how much more so in the case of women who fear that the repercussions will be further abuse and threat of deportation.
I hope we will hear from the Minister a commitment to make the urgent changes which are so desperately needed for these women. I hope, too, that his conclusions will lead him to the view that the standards of proof needed in such cases must be set at a realistic and workable level.

We need changes that are transparent and accountable, and which allow a right of appeal based on the evidence of domestic violence.
The Southall Black Sisters report, which my hon. Friend has seen, offers many solutions to the problem. He and his colleagues have said that they seek a fair and firm immigration policy. Currently, the immigration rules for these women do not provide that. They entail several useless appeals that clog the system, none of which take into account the real reason for the breakdown of the relationship and the horror of domestic violence.
Southall Black Sisters have recommended the ending of the one-year rule. However, I appreciate that it may not be appropriate to do that immediately, in the context of a full review of immigration rules. However, regulations may be amended to enable the Secretary of State to take into account domestic violence, the effect on children and the fear of being returned to the home land.
Other options that have been suggested include a change in the benefit rules, under which women currently have no recourse to any means of support. Women need to have some independence. The benefit rules currently exist to give temporary assistance to certain persons from abroad who are awaiting a decision on their immigration status. A relatively minor change could be made to include women fleeing domestic violence. I hope that the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister will look sympathetically on some of those proposals.
Domestic violence is a cowardly crime. It cannot be right that our immigration system implicitly condones, or at least does nothing to prevent, that crime. That is why I and the Southall Black Sisters, to whom I pay a whole-hearted tribute for the dedication and detail with which they have pursued this issue, believe that my hon. Friend must act to give some hope to the women who endure this tragic choice. For the sake of my constituent and all women in this position, we ask my hon. Friend to act soon.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House today. As she is aware, I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee which investigated and reported on this very issue. I am therefore deeply aware of the misery and anguish that can arise from the feeling of being trapped in a violent situation. I shall refer further to that report in a moment.
I shall begin by explaining the rationale behind the policy on the admission of spouses. The immigration rules provide for an overseas spouse to join a person settled here, as a way of enabling the continuation or formation of family life. As admission in that capacity leads to settlement, it is a category which has attractions for those intent on abusing the provisions of immigration control. In an attempt to minimise the scope for such abuse, the immigration rules require a number of other criteria to be met before entry clearance can be granted to someone as the overseas spouse of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom. They include the couple's ability to maintain and accommodate themselves and an intention to live together permanently as husband and wife.
Once entry has been gained in that capacity, a further measure against abuse is applied. That is the arrangement whereby the person admitted is given leave to enter for


12 months in the first instance. At the end of that period, the overseas spouse may apply for indefinite leave to remain, or for settlement. If checks at that stage show that the marriage is subsisting and the other requirements of the immigration rules continue to be met, settlement is granted. If, for whatever reason, the marriage has broken down during the probationary year, settlement is normally refused. That is because the fundamental reason for the person's admission in the first place—to continue or commence a stable family life—no longer exists.
I hope that the House will agree that, in the generality of cases, that is the only sensible way to operate a firm but fair immigration control. I do, of course, accept that the policy relating to the probationary year—commonly referred to as the one-year rule—has its critics, including Southall Black Sisters. I would only say at this stage that the United Kingdom is not alone in operating such a policy in relation to the admission of spouses. Indeed, a number of our European Union partners impose a considerably longer probationary period before permanent residence is granted. Because of its importance to the integrity of immigration control, the Government do not intend to abandon the one-year rule.
However, as we have heard today, what may be entirely defensible for the generality of cases can also place a relatively small minority of individuals in a particularly distressing dilemma. When the overseas spouse becomes the victim of domestic violence during her first year here, she faces the prospect either of staying within that violent relationship or of being refused settlement if she escapes from it, because the marriage would then be no longer subsisting.
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the work of Southall Black Sisters, who brought this matter to the attention of Ministers and the House. My hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee when it looked into issues surrounding domestic violence. Its third report in the last Parliament dealt with domestic violence. It drew attention to a number of sensitive issues relating to black and ethnic minority victims.
The evidence given by Southall Black Sisters was described by the then Minister—I endorse the description—as moving and poignant. They warned, rightly, against creating any stereotype of Asian cultures and life styles. However, they said that it was important to deal with some special problems within the Asian community. They identified three main problems: first, the lack of confidence in the police and the criminal justice system; secondly, that the police tended to be reluctant to intervene in Asian communities because of their perception that they had their own internal mechanisms of policing; and thirdly, the grave pressure felt by Asian women about not breaking the norms and values of their religion and culture, and bringing dishonour and shame upon their families by reporting domestic violence.
We need to overcome some of those problems. Since that report, the police have begun to take domestic violence seriously, both generally and in ethnic minority communities. We also need to encourage ethnic minority communities to feel that, when women are victims of domestic violence, it is right either that they should report it to the police, who must ensure that the criminal

procedure is operated, if that is appropriate, or civil orders are put in place. That is one of the conclusions that I have come to from looking again at the evidence from Southall Black Sisters.
Paragraph 35 of the Select Committee report sets out the problem graphically. It says:
Some black and ethnic minority women may be particularly inhibited from reporting domestic violence because of the provisions of immigration legislation. In essence, a spouse of a person who is present and settled in the United Kingdom is admitted to this country for an initial period of 12 months. During that period, she or he may not have any recourse to public funds, and, if the marriage breaks down, is liable to deportation. If a woman with this immigration status is the victim of domestic violence, as the Southall Black Sisters told us, she is likely to be fearful of using either the criminal or civil justice system because she realises that she is at risk of being required to leave the country, and believes that the authorities will take action against her. Consequently, her choice is stark—she must risk her physical safety or risk deportation, and she will not even have the opportunity to use the social security system if she needs refuge accommodation. According to the Southall Black Sisters, some men and their families exploit this position of power over their spouses so that women fear that even if the police do not denounce them to the Immigration Nationality Department . their husbands will.
The report went on to conclude:
We recommend that the Home Office inquire further into the scale of the problem, and consider what changes in IND practice might be appropriate to accommodate cases of genuine hardship whilst avoiding any collusion or deception intended to circumvent the Immigration Rules.
I was a Back-Bench member of the Select Committee that inquired into the issue and heard that evidence, and now that 1 am a Minister, I have worked closely with Southall Black Sisters to see how we can change the law. We want to ensure that we comply with the Select Committee's recommendation. We need to consider the nature of the problem, which involves a relatively small number of women. We must create mechanisms that prevent the exploitation of any gap in the immigration rules, and, at the same time, deal with the problem of domestic violence.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have given much thought to what, if anything, could be done to help those who are in the invidious position described in the report. In doing so, we found it helpful to discuss these issues with Southall Black Sisters. I pay tribute to them for putting their case with lucid and reasoned argument.
In areas such as this, where the need for flexibility on humanitarian grounds is recognised, it is incumbent on us to ensure that, in addressing the issue at hand, we do not at the same time run the risk of opening doors to new ways of defeating the proper requirements of immigration control. The recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs recognised that risk.
It is also important to look at the evidence that an applicant may be asked to produce to show that he or she has been the victim of domestic violence. Victims of domestic violence are usually women, but we must recognise that men are also sometimes the subject of such violence. When I was a practising lawyer, one of my first such cases involved a man who was the victim of severe domestic violence. However, most cases involve women victims of appalling domestic violence. We want to tackle that problem, not only in our broad policy agenda but in the particular area of immigration control.


We should examine the evidence that the person produces and see whether the applications can be dealt with swiftly—which is very important—and with fairness and consistency. Above all, there must be objective criteria. Anything less would place on officials the impossible and inappropriate burden of making judgments about the quality of a relationship, and apportioning blame for the breakdown of the marriage.
We cannot agree to all that Southall Black Sisters have sought. Our task is to balance the need for firm immigration controls with the need for compassion. Such a balance is difficult to achieve, but the case for some change is well made. We shall have to see whether the changes we make work, or need to be further refined in the years to come.
I have considered whether we should make a change by way of concession or by way of rules. Initially, it would be appropriate to make any change by concession, and to see how that works before considering whether a

rule change is required. A rule change is a bigger step, and we must ensure that we get it entirely right. A period of concession would enable us to refine the operation of any possible rules before we put them into the rule book.
We are trying to balance control and compassion. That raises difficult issues, but they are not insurmountable. I have listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South, and to those made by Southall Black Sisters. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will take account of all that has been said, and I should be able to announce our conclusions shortly. I hope that any measures we take will be seen as a step in the right direction. No one can guarantee that they will be an endgame or a panacea, but I hope that in due course we shall be able to take that step.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Agriculture

Mr. David Hanson: If he will make a statement on discussions relating to agriculture during the recent visit to Wales of the President of the European Union Commission. [45897]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I discussed a number of issues with President Santer on the occasion of his visit to Wales on 29 May, particularly the lifting of the ban on the export of beef. The Commission's proposal for a UK date-based export scheme is a key step towards lifting the export ban throughout the UK. The Government are working hard for an effective scheme which allows exports to resume.

Mr. Hanson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at its last meeting, the Standing Veterinary Committee of the European Commission yet again deferred—until July—a decision on the date-based export scheme. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do all that they can, from the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to ensure that the Commission reaches a decision early so that Welsh beef can be exported again, and so that the success of Welsh farmers can be improved?

Mr. Davies: I can most certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I agree with his comments about the desirability of raising the export ban. He will be interested to know that the matter comes back to the Standing Veterinary Committee on 7 July. Between now and then, the British Government will seek to maximise co-operation with our European colleagues so that we are successful on that date.
Seeing the hon. Member for Woodside—

Dr. Liam Fox: Woodspring, please.

Mr. Ron Davies: Seeing the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on the Opposition Front Bench reminds me that, during his days as a Foreign Office Minister, he displayed a poster saying "Stuff the EU". I should like the House to contrast the mindless confrontation of the previous Government, which got us nowhere, with this Government's positive attitude. We are actively seeking co-operation which, after many years of chaos, at last brings the hope of some lifting of the dreadful curse on the British farming industry.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I am interested in what the Secretary of State said about the lifting of the beef ban, and I hope that that will happen this calendar year. Did the right hon. Gentleman also discuss the retirement scheme, and whether it was possible to change the rules so that Welsh family farms

do not have to be amalgamated in order to qualify, and to give young farmers a chance to get on to the bottom rung of the farming ladder?

Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was in his constituency last Friday, when I discussed with young farmers, from his constituency and throughout Wales, the particular problems of the European regulation as it relates to the restructuring that we currently want. He will know that, at the moment, there has to be some amalgamation of farms under that regulation, which will result in the loss of farming opportunities. That is a matter of concern which the Government will look at closely as we seek to restructure the industry so that it can more effectively meet the challenges of the future.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: When the President of the Commission visited my right hon. Friend's constituency and mine, did he fully appreciate the needs and wishes of our communities—particularly the fact that their gross domestic product per capita is 62 per cent. of the European average? Did we manage to get across the powerful message that we deserve objective 1 status, and did the President approve that idea?

Mr. Davies: I can certainly confirm that the President travelled with me through my hon. Friend's constituency, and it is fair to say that he was very. impressed with the case that was made. My hon. Friend's constituency has reservoirs of poverty and unemployment as bad as those anywhere in the United Kingdom. The British Government's case has been submitted to Eurostat by the British Government's own statistical service. During my discussions with the President, I certainly impressed on him the need for maximum support for the case that we have submitted on granting Wales objective 1 status. I think he fully accepts the justice of our case, which was based on low GDP levels throughout the west of Wales and the valleys.

Mr. Nigel Evans: It is clear that some of our European politicians are as out of touch as the Government with the plight of farmers. It is quite unbelievable that Members of the European Parliament are contemplating doubling their salaries at a time when farmers' incomes have been halved. Today—after his discussions with the President of the European Commission—what fresh measures can the Secretary of State announce to help the farmers and other people who, just a few days ago, marched through Cardiff in protest at the fact that their plight is falling on deaf ears among the Government? Does he realise that there will be fresh job losses throughout the rural economy if there is no fresh help for our farmers?

Mr. Davies: The message that farmers gave me on Sunday was not about their plight falling on deaf ears. I invited them into the Welsh Office, where I had a very courteous, civilised and helpful discussion with them. They of course told me about the difficulties that agriculture faces, but also stressed that a backlog of difficulties has developed in the red meat industry over the past 10 years—during which the industry has declined because of the previous Government's failure to establish a proper marketing policy for Welsh products,


and because of the problems with BSE, which were a direct consequence of that Government's inactivity. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), on 7 July, the Standing Veterinary Committee will again consider the export ban. I hope that the Opposition will now join the Government in trying to put right that wrong, which has existed for a very long time.

Gwent Tertiary College

Mr. Llew Smith: Pursuant to his Department's letter of 1 June, when he expects to have completed the collation of data relating to European moneys allocated to Gwent tertiary college for each individual project. [45898]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I shall continue to give my hon. Friend all the information that I can. 1 strongly support the chairman and new principal of the college in today calling in the fraud investigation and inspection unit to investigate, in liaison with police, the receipt and allocation of European social funds by the college in 1995 and 1996. I expect a thorough inquiry to be conducted, with robust and vigorous action taken against anyone found responsible for any wrongdoing. From the time when I was informed of the history of serious mismanagement of the college, I have been determined to ensure that the college is re-established on a basis of high educational standards, sound finance and good management.

Mr. Smith: The Minister will be aware that, for many months now, I have been requesting information on the European funds that have gone to Gwent tertiary college and on the individual amounts of European money—which should have been matched by the college—that have gone to individual projects across Gwent. He will be aware also that I have requested information on correspondence that went to the corporation, in June 1997, warning it that use of the European funds would not stand up to serious audit, and requesting information on what action had been taken.
Until now, the Minister has failed or refused to provide me with that information. When will I receive that information, which is being demanded not only by me and other hon. Members but by the college's staff and students, the general public and those who are involved in the projects? The demand is justified—especially given that the Labour Government are quite rightly committed to a freedom of information Act.

Mr. Hain: I remind my hon. Friend that I have repeatedly invited him to come to the Department and discuss and clarify with me, and officials from my Department and from the Department for Education and Employment, exactly what information he requires. There is now a serious fraud investigation at Gwent college. I hope my hon. Friend will join me in ensuring that the investigation is conducted speedily, and that its outcome re-establishes the college, so that it has the local community's full confidence in providing education services, as it should be doing.

National Assembly

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: If he will make a statement on the impact on staff levels in the Welsh Office of the creation of a Welsh assembly. [45899]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Our best estimate of the impact on staff levels was set out in the White Paper published in June which was endorsed in the referendum last September. It was included in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Government of Wales Bill, approved by the House with a majority of 231 on Second Reading. Since then, no decisions have been taken which would alter that estimate.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Can he possibly be happy that the Government are spending so much money on setting up new institutions at a time when there is a shortage of teachers and class sizes are growing, and when there is a shortage of nurses, and hospital waiting lists are growing? Should not the Government be spending the taxpayers' money on front-line services instead of the frills and furbelows of new administrations?

Mr. Davies: Of course I am happy with the plans, because they are my plans. They are the basis on which my colleagues and I were elected at the general election last May which removed the last Conservative Member from Wales, and were endorsed in the referendum last September. So, in direct answer to the hon. Lady's question, yes, I am satisfied with the plans. I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady should profess such great concern for the financial health of Wales, because, when he was Secretary of State the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whom she would regard as a particularly close soulmate, was responsible for taking £110 million from the Welsh block to return it to the Treasury.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: (Preseli Pembrokeshire): Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the Welsh assembly has a major remit to deal with quangos in Wales, which mushroomed under the previous Government? Between 1994 and 1996, funding for the top 10 of those quangos doubled from £26 million a year to £51 million a year, at a time when the retail prices index went up by 6.1 per cent.

Mr. Davies: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I remind her that the case that the Government put forward during the referendum was that there would be a substantial restructuring of the quango state. We have already started that process. We have done away with a large number of quangos, producing savings to the Welsh block. There will be further savings to come as we deal with the remainder of the quango state. The whole purpose of the assembly is to make sure that public money which is available in Wales goes directly to providing services that the people want.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Should not the Secretary of State be unsurprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), given that she, her hon. Friends and Conservative candidates for the national assembly are doing nothing but trying to


undermine the credibility of the national assembly, despite what was said by the Leader of the Opposition at Llangollen recently? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the intentions of the Welsh Office in reviewing the staff structure for the assembly unit dealing with the European Union? In view of the difficulties that have been experienced over objective 1 status, and the problems faced by Denbighshire county council over grants from Europe, is there not a need to look at the European section in some depth?

Mr. Davies: Yes, there is. How we restructure the Welsh Office in the run-up to the creation of the assembly next year is a difficult issue. I very much welcome the constructive approach of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). During the coming months, it is my intention to invite the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and those representing other parties in the House, to join me in discussing where we can reach agreement before next May so that the institutional changes that are necessary reflect the broad consensus. I hope that all parties present will accept that invitation.
However, I am not much struck by the ability of the Conservative party to offer advice on these matters, as I note from the front page of The Times today that the Conservative party has an income of £600,000 a year and expenditure of £3 million a year, and that the first casualty of the imposed planning cuts is the Conservative party office in Wales, which is to close.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is a good example of the actions of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and that there is a big contrast between Conservatives in Essex and elsewhere and Conservatives in Wales, who are falling over themselves to stand for the assembly?

Mr. Davies: Yes.

Dr. Liam Fox: In view of the Secretary of State's plans to spend £113,000 or more on a chief legal officer, will he tell us the numbers, salaries and civil service grades of the support staff required for the chief legal officer?

Mr. Davies: One of the principal duties of the chief legal officer will be to advise me on such matters. That is the sensible way to proceed. The appointment is being made on the normal civil service terms for an appointment of such seniority and importance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that the assembly should have a second-class lawyer and poorer legal services than any of the Whitehall Departments with which it has to deal.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the shadow Cabinet. We can hope that he is better informed than any of his predecessors, because I am told that, unlike them, on a clear day he can see Wales.

Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State failed to get even the name of my constituency right at the outset. His lack of preparation seems to be matched only by his lack of knowledge of detail on this issue. As someone who seeks to hold the offices of Secretary of State and First Secretary

in Wales, how does he square the conflict of representing an assembly independently with collective Cabinet responsibility?

Mr. Davies: The composition of the British Cabinet is for the Prime Minister to decide, and who is First Secretary of the Welsh assembly will be for the Welsh assembly to decide. 1 know that the Tory party in Wales is in great difficulty, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more positive and come up with some constructive proposals. With the referendum behind us, it is time to stop all the negative, carping criticism that we have heard over the past 12 months. The hon. Gentleman should realise that some people in his party in Wales are seeking to drag Wales down; they are happy to gain cheap publicity for the Tory party, even though they know that it means bad news for the people of Wales.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I thank the Secretary of State for confirming, in answer to the main question, that there is provision for 100 additional staff. Does he agree that those 100 additional staff are the equivalent of the Clerks, the Library staff and the others who serve this House? With a Cabinet model in the assembly, with Front Benchers and Back Benchers, the purpose of those 100 additional staff should be to give independent advice to the Back Benchers in the Welsh assembly. They should be responsible to the equivalent of the Speaker, and independent of the civil service.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is partly right, but drawing a parallel with this House does not take him along the right lines. There will not be Back Benchers as there are in this House, because the Committee system will ensure that all Members of the Assembly have a constructive role in framing policy, so there will not be Ministers and an Opposition. I hope that an Opposition mindset does not develop in the assembly. However, my hon. Friend is partly right to say that there will be a need to set up a Department that is broadly equivalent to the Department that you head, Madam Speaker. Members of the Assembly will need access to a unit that is slightly set apart from the mainstream civil service, which will be responsible for answering to the Secretaries who take the executive decisions in the new assembly.

Celtic Heritage

Mr. Andrew George: If he will introduce measures to develop cultural links relating to Celtic heritage with (a) Scotland, (b) Cornwall, (c) Isle of Man, (d) Ireland and (e) Brittany. [45900]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Cultural links with other Celtic communities have already been developed by the Welsh Language Board, the National Eisteddfod of Wales, and the Arts Council of Wales. Wales takes part in the annual Celtic film festival, which I understand was held in Cornwall in 1997. Groups and artistes from Wales regularly attend a wide range of events in other Celtic countries.

Mr. George: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that the British people support the setting up of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly because they recognise that the celebration of


the diversity of cultures, languages, religious groups, ethnicities and nations in the UK makes a positive contribution to the life and economy of these islands and is not a sinister move? Will the right hon. Gentleman seize this moment to act, and to advise his colleagues in the Cabinet that his Celtic cousins in Cornwall would very much appreciate collaboration—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very long question. If the hon. Gentleman wants an Adjournment debate on this issue at some time, he has only to look my way. This is Question Time and we are only on question 4. Will the hon. Gentleman now put his final point to the Secretary of State? What is he asking him to do?

Mr. George: Will the Secretary of State collaborate with and support the distinct region of Cornwall?

Mr. Davies: It is obvious who speaks for Cornwall in this House.
Only a couple of weeks ago, I attended a conference in Cardiff with representatives of European minority languages. I will do all that I can to encourage the links to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I happen to believe that, if we are confident in our own identity in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the other regions of Europe, we will be more at ease with other people's identity.

Class Sizes

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What representations he has received about primary school class sizes in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [45903]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Hon. Members, school governors, head teachers, class teachers, parents and local authorities have all written supporting the policy to reduce infant classes to a maximum of 30 pupils, but not at the expense of larger junior-age classes.

Mr. Robathan: Can the Minister confirm that, far from going down, some class sizes are going up? Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the card I have which says:
Keep this card and see that we keep our promises.
It says that new Labour's early pledges include cutting class sizes to 30 or under for five, six and seven-year-olds. The national assembly is wanted by only one in four Welsh people. Would it not be better to spend the money intended for the national assembly and associated events on cutting class sizes in Wales?

Mr. Hain: I admire the hon. Gentleman's cheek. The Government whom he supported before 1 May last year presided over record class sizes and left us with a legacy, with which we are having to grapple, whereby there are now 35,000 infants in classes of more than 30. There are 1,000 classes in Wales and 35,000 pupils. We are reducing class sizes by abolishing the assisted places scheme which funded a privileged education for a tiny minority of pupils—only 1,000—at the expense of everybody else.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government at least have a pledge to reduce class sizes, whereas the Conservative party has no such commitment, and went into the election without one? May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the problems of Ponthir school in my constituency, which is bursting at the seams because of a housing development approved by the Welsh Office before the last election? Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the staffing and physical conditions of that school?

Mr. Hain: This is not only a pledge on which we were elected but a pledge on which we intend to deliver. We intend to deliver class sizes of under 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I will tell hon. Members when. It will be by the next election. By that time, we will have eradicated the dreadful legacy of 35,000 infants in Wales in large classes. My hon. Friend asked about his local school, and I will, of course, look into the matter.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Philip Hammond: When he expects hospital waiting lists in Wales to start falling; and when he expects them to fall to the level of 1 May 1997. [45904]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): Wales's share of the additional money for the NHS announced in the Budget is £25 million. A total of £20 million of that money will be used to target the growth in in-patient and day-case waiting lists and enable the service to reduce lists to below the level at which they stood when the Government took office, by the end of this financial year. That supports the Government's commitment to reduce waiting lists over the lifetime of this Parliament by 100,000.

Mr. Hammond: That would be fine if the Government's early pledge had been only to allow waiting lists to continue to rise for two years. However, I accept what the Minister tells us, and I am grateful for it. If he fails to deliver on the pledge to reduce waiting lists to the May 1997 level by the end of April 1999, who will be responsible? Will he follow the lead of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and blame health service managers, or will he accept responsibility and resign?

Mr. Griffiths: I am confident that the plans that health authorities in Wales have drawn up, and the additional support that we will get from experts in the health service, including Professor Brian Edwards, will enable us to achieve our targets, and that, unlike the previous Conservative Government£the waiting lists for in-patient day cases in Wales rose by 8 per cent. in their last two years£we will have levelled off and achieved our target by the end of this financial year.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will my hon. Friend pledge to tackle urgently the serious waiting list problem for cataract operations in north Wales,


particularly at the district hospital in Wrexham? Does he agree that a pensioner waiting for a cataract operation suffers a serious blight on his or her life? May I also thank my hon. Friend for receiving my deputation from the Royal National Institute for the Blind so courteously recently?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the long waiting list for cataract operations at the Wrexham Maelor hospital and am anticipating that the North Wales health authority will produce proposals to reduce it. It is unacceptable that old people should have to wait for operations that can be so important for the retention or regaining of their eyesight.

Environment

Mr. John Randall: What representations he has received concerning the Government's policy on the environment in Wales. [45905]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): My right hon. Friend and I have received many representations on a wide range of environmental policies and issues in Wales.

Mr. Randall: Will the forthcoming consultation paper tackle the serious problem of giving effective protection to Welsh marine wildlife?

Mr. Griffiths: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that will certainly be one of the issues that we want to target. We want to ensure not only that land sites in Wales are safe, but that marine sites are, too. Soon after we came into government, I set up a coastal forum for that purpose-something that the Conservative Government refused to do.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister will be aware of the positive response of Welsh farmers to the proposed all-Wales agri-environmental scheme. In those circumstances, will he confirm that all the necessary paperwork has already been submitted to Brussels?

Mr. Griffiths: We are discussing those issues with Brussels at this moment. We certainly hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future.

Beef Export Ban

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What discussions he has had with the European Commission concerning lifting the ban on the export of beef. [45906]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson).

Mr. Jones: The Minister will be aware that the Standing Veterinary Committee of the European

Commission will be considering the date-based scheme on 9 July. What actions are Welsh Office Ministers taking to ensure that we will not this time have the sort of problems that we had over the lifting of the export ban for Northern Ireland, and that the committee will consider the case on its merits, not according to the political considerations of other member states?

Mr. Griffiths: We are doing everything possible in the Welsh Office-with Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food-to ensure that, when the committee considers those proposals in July, it will accept them. That is what we have been wanting to achieve, to get rid of the damning and damaging legacy of the previous Government.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The European beef ban has provoked an unprecedented and hideous crisis in the Welsh livestock industry. The Welsh Affairs Committee reported a month ago, in May. When will the Government take action on the recommendations in its report?

Mr. Griffiths: Given that the Conservative Government studiously refused to take action on the crisis over 10 years, it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to complain about the fact that we in the Welsh Office are carefully considering the Select Committee's recommendations, so that, when we respond, we shall have a positive message to put across to farmers in Wales-farmers will welcome that, as they did not have it for a decade or more from the Conservative Government.

Agriculture

Mr. Graham Brady: What representations he has received concerning the Government's policy on agriculture in Wales. [45907]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): My right hon. Friend and I have received considerable numbers of representations, both written and oral, on the Government's policy on Welsh agriculture since the start of the crisis, and we continue to receive them.

Mr. Brady: Is the Minister aware that many thousands of hard-pressed farmers in Wales-and their bank managers-will be following these exchanges? What hope can he give them that their financial position will improve, and when?

Mr. Griffiths: The hope that we can give them is that, as a Government, we have done everything possible in co-operating positively with Brussels to remove the beef export ban. Moreover, the Welsh Office is working to produce a positive food strategy in Wales, so that farmers can see that they will be able to sell their products at a reasonable price in the market. In that way, we will generally give them the hope that was destroyed over a decade by the Conservative Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Dr. George Turner: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Dr. Turner: Is the Prime Minister willing to share with the House his reaction to the front page of today's edition of The Sun, which called him
the most dangerous man in Britain"?
Was he shocked, amused or flattered? More seriously, will he confirm that any proposal to join the European single currency will be based solely and completely on the national economic interest? Will he guarantee that the final word will be given by the British people through the ballot box, and not by The Sun?

The Prime Minister: As the House may know, my admirably objective press secretary simply gives me a digest of the newspaper headlines every day. All that it contained about The Sun was that I was described on the front page as having
the potential to be a truly great Prime Minister".
I cannot think why that did not make it into the headline. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will refuse-and have refused-to rule out joining a single currency as a matter of principle. The decision has to be based on our national economic interest. The position set out by the Chancellor last October continues to be the Government's position and will remain the Government's position. As my hon. Friend says, the final decision will be for the British people. Newspapers are entitled to their view, but we govern in the national interest.

Mr. Peter Lilley: During the general election, the right hon. Gentleman made his top manifesto pledge the reduction of welfare bills. A year later, will he say how much the measures that he has announced will reduce spending on welfare?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am delighted to do so. Since we took power last year, an extra 400,000 jobs have been created, unemployment has been reduced by 300,000 or more, and 30,000 young people have got jobs as a result of the new deal, which the Conservative party opposed. That, for the information of Conservative Members, reduces welfare bills by cutting unemployment, not by increasing poverty, which was the Tory way.

Mr. Lilley: I know that the Prime Minister is not good at the detail on this, but he has got the figures absolutely diametrically wrong. All his major reforms will increase welfare bills, not cut them. Welfare to work will cost an extra £3.5 billion on top of any savings. Reforms to family credit will cost £1.2 billion a year after any savings.

The child support package will cost an extra £1.2 billion a year. Those are not my figures; they are the Chancellor's. The Prime Minister seems to dispute them. We know that he thinks that his Chancellor is psychologically flawed, but is he saying that he is arithmetically flawed as well? Labour promised to cut welfare, but that is another broken pledge.

The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong for the simple reason that the 30,000 young people who have come off the dole as a result of the new deal are 30,000 youngsters who are getting not benefit, but the jobs denied them by the Tory Government. Secondly, his suggestion was very interesting. It seems he is opposed to the working families tax credit, a measure that will mean that no one who is in a job and who has children will earn less than £180 a week. He is opposed to our proposal that no one should pay tax before earning £220 a week. He is opposed to measures to reform the Child Support Agency. All that is very interesting, but it is not a manifesto that will win the right hon. Gentleman an election.

Mr. Lilley: The Prime Minister is tacitly admitting that he is going to break his pledge. He said that he wanted to cut welfare bills and encourage personal provision. Instead, he is taxing people's pensions to pay for his failure to cut welfare bills. Should not he stop relying on roadshows and reviews, get to grips with the details of his programme, and come up with some concrete savings instead of empty rhetoric?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can always put his notes on the Dispatch Box and read them from there if he wants.
The new deal is a series of very detailed measures. They are in operation, and they are opposed by the right hon. Gentleman's party. They take people off benefit and into work. That is part of welfare reform, and very sensible, too. It allows young people who previously had no hope of a job to get one. It also means that, because of the measures that the Chancellor has announced on tax and benefit reform, people have an incentive to work. For the first time for them, work pays. The right hon. Gentleman's party also opposes the minimum wage. All those measures mean that, for the first time, young people or those who are long-term unemployed have the chance to work and to earn a decent living wage. That is the Labour way. We saw the Tory way for 18 years; it was rejected by the country, and it will be again.

Mr. Jeff Ennis: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware of the excellent document, "Making the difference: a new start for England's coalfield communities", produced by the coalfields task force and launched successfully at the Acorn centre, Grimethorpe, last week? Does he agree that our Government must seriously consider many, if not all, the recommendations contained in that document if we are to succeed in regenerating our coalfield areas, which were so badly neglected by the previous Tory Administration?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on regeneration of the coalfield areas, both in his present position, and previously as the leader of his local


authority. We believe that the report offers a valuable way forward. As structural change hits the coalfield communities, we are able to help people back to work or to start small businesses. We are able to bring inward investment from outside those regions. Those are the right ways for Government to act. After years of hearing a Government say that they had no responsibility for regenerating those areas, we accept our responsibility, and we are discharging it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: May I join the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) in welcoming the coalfield communities report? I urge the Prime Minister to respond positively to it.
Bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said earlier, if No. 10 receives another call asking him to intercede on Rupert Murdoch's behalf with some foreign Government, does the switchboard have instructions not to put the call through?

The Prime Minister: No. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, what newspapers do, and their positions and their policy, are up to them. The Government set out a firm policy last October, which will be maintained. That policy is in the national interest. It refuses to rule out a single currency in principle, and it says that the test is what is good for British jobs, industry and investment. If we hold to that test, the United Kingdom will gain. To go down the Conservatives' route of saying that the single currency should be ruled out for ever, and that they would never join it under any circumstances, would go wholly against our country's interests, and I shall not support that.

Mr. Beith: Is not it important that, on this matter and many others, a diversity of opinion should be represented in the press? Does the Prime Minister recognise, after reflecting on the matter today, that he should take a bit more notice of the calls from many in the House and outside for some control of monopoly ownership in the media and for measures to deal with predatory pricing?

The Prime Minister: The one thing that, I think would be totally unjustified is that, just because a newspaper expresses a view on a single currency, we start legislating on it. There will be a variety of views on this in all quarters-in newspapers, in political parties and throughout the entirety of the political spectrum. That is perfectly natural. The important thing is for the Government to have a clear position and to carry it through in the national interest. People will have very strong views about this, but I am quite clear in my own mind that we have the right policy for the country, and I think it is my duty to put it forward. Conservative Members may disagree with it. That is their prerogative, but we have the policy and we will maintain it.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern among businesses and individuals about today's 7.5 per cent. interest rates and the 4.2 per cent. retail price index figure? However, does he recall that 10 years ago, under the Conservative party, we had exactly the same level of interest rates, exactly the same RPI level and twice as many unemployed people? [Interruption.] Will he assure me and the people of

Britain that he will not repeat the stop-go policies that the Conservatives instituted which, within one year of the date that I am talking about, had doubled interest rates, increased inflation and still had unemployment higher than today? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: It is no surprise that Conservative Members want to bawl my hon. Friend down because they want people to forget that that is precisely what happened under Conservative policies. Under the policies pursued by the Conservative party, as the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development makes very clear, we ended up with interest rates at 15 per cent. for a year, record borrowing, record repossessions and the worst recession since the war. That was because that Government in 1988 failed to take the measures necessary to produce economic stability. Those days of boom and bust are over. They are what the Conservative party gave us and this Government are not going to repeat their mistakes.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Prime Minister accept that, after this morning, the sun has set on his strategy of deferring a referendum on economic and monetary union until after the next general election, that he has no political reason for further delay, and that it is in the national interest that he should stand up and lead from the front in countering the negative, nationalist propaganda emerging from some sections of the popular press?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He's as barmy as that lot.

The Prime Minister: I think I go along with that. There is a job there as an official spokesman.
There are two absurd policies on the euro. One is to say, as does the Conservative party, that we are against it and will never join it no matter what the economic circumstances are. The second is the position of the Liberal Democrats, which is to say that we must join irrespective of the economic circumstances—[Interruption.] Well, the position that I believe to be sensible is that we say that we will not rule out joining it in principle and that we hope for it to succeed, but whether we join depends on whether it satisfies the test of our national economic interest. I believe that that is the sensible policy and I also believe that it is the policy that, the vast majority of people in the country will follow.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he intends to continue the robust stance that he has adopted towards Serbia and President Milosevic over Kosovo, which has been much welcomed by both sides of the House? Will he impress on the Foreign Secretary the need to bring our American allies more strongly on board in this matter? The situation in Kosovo is grave and getting worse.

The Prime Minister: I would say that our American allies are on all fours with us on this policy. The reason why there has been discussion in the past few days about whether the NATO military option has gone back a little is not that we have changed our position in any shape or form at all. It remains the position that we are making certain demands of President Milosevic. If he does not


obey those demands-ceasing the internal aggression in Kosovo and withdrawing his special units from it-that military option remains very much on the table. I hope that, as a result of the talks that he has had with both President Yeltsin and Mr. Holbrooke, the American representative, he takes the measures necessary to calm the situation down; but, if he does not, let me state unequivocally that the NATO military option remains.

Mr. David Amess: Given that the leader of the Labour party has taken to blaming Conservatives in Essex for all problems, even though they have been in power for only a few weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly apply those same rigorous standards to himself and the Government he leads, and tell the House and the country who is responsible for growing hospital waiting lists; who is responsible for increasing class sizes; who is responsible for growing inflation; who is responsible for rising interest rates; who is responsible for enlarging balance of payments deficits; who is responsible for increasing strikes; and who is responsible for our poor sporting performances? Will he not answer by repeating a rendition of last year's victory anthem, "Things Can Only Get Better"?

The Prime Minister: I take full responsibility for meeting every one of the pledges that we set out at the last election, and we will do so, which is why I am delighted that the Conservative party has made that the test of the success or otherwise of the Government. Let me point out that it is the Labour party that is putting extra money into the national health service, opposed by the Conservative party; it is the Labour party, after 10 years of rising class sizes under the Conservatives, that has got through the measures to reduce class sizes, opposed by the Conservative party; it is the Labour party that has introduced the new deal for young people, opposed by the Conservative party; and it is the Labour party that is introducing the measures to squeeze inflation out of the system, opposed by the Conservative party. Every single measure that we have taken has been opposed by the hon. Gentleman's party, and I hope that, when we come back and all those pledges are met, he will be the first to stand up and congratulate us.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the successful New Addington, Croydon education action zone bid was supported by Midland bank, Virgin Atlantic Airways, Abbey National, Marks and Spencer, British Telecom, Lloyds bank, Smiths Industries, Direct Line, Commercial Union and many other industries and companies? We need no lectures from the Opposition, who failed to form such partnerships to support education in their 18 long years of misrule.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am astonished that the Conservative party should oppose those reforms, which are very important. They will allow a lot of experimentation within local education authorities, and they are going to improve standards in our schools. They are part of a programme that is to get extra investment into our schools-far more than the Conservatives were promising-and, at the same time, to introduce reforms that mean that that money is spent wisely. I believe that we shall see the results of those reforms shortly.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Prime Minister set up an independent inquiry into the very

serious allegations surrounding the accounts of the Kettering centre for the unemployed; and will he publish the report of the internal Labour national executive committee inquiry into those allegations?

The Prime Minister: I do not know about the particular inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly make inquiries about it and write to him on it.

Ms Oona King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the Ku Klux Klan are currently operating in my constituency? In light of this week's 50th anniversary of the Windrush-the first boat bringing Afro-Caribbeans to this country-will he urge the country to recognise that ethnic minorities do not represent a threat, but that we represent an opportunity? While this country has no need of pointed white hats, in this Chamber in particular we could perhaps do with a bit more colour.

The Prime Minister: I was delighted to be part of the Windrush celebrations. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says about the nature of our society and the desire to see it as a multicultural, multiracial society. She will know that in the Crime and Disorder Bill which is presently before the House, there are new measures to deal with violence that is racially motivated and aggravated by that reason. We will certainly apply both that law and the existing provisions under the law to make sure that we root out any racism and any violence wherever we can.
I think that this country is proud of the changes that we have made over the past number of years, actually under both Governments, to bring about a society where people are valued irrespective of their ethnic background. That is the type of country I wish to bring my children up in. I think that it is the type of country that the vast majority of British people believe in.

Mr. Peter Lilley: After last night's vote in the other place, does the Prime Minister still defend making students at Scottish universities pay more in tuition fees than students in the rest of the United Kingdom? UK students at Scottish universities will pay more in tuition fees than those from the rest of Europe.

The Prime Minister: No. The reason for this is perfectly simple. It would be wrong to have a situation in which English students came to Scotland and got the full benefit of the Scottish provisions. In respect—[Interruption.] That is because of the different courses that there are in Scotland. I do not think that it has been clearly understood-but I am delighted to say this-that students from other parts of the European Union are not entitled to the same benefits in terms of maintenance loans and the other support that is given. That is the reason for the change, and it is a perfectly sensible one.

Mr. Lilley: This is not about maintenance; it is about tuition and about fairness. It is patently unfair that an English student at a Scottish university should pay £1,000 more in tuition than a French student, and that a student from Northern Ireland should pay more than a student from Southern Ireland. The other place has twice


asked the Government to think again. Is the Prime Minister too arrogant to admit that he has made a mistake, or will he simply now accept the Lords amendment?

The Prime Minister: No, because I do not accept that it is a mistake. Let me point out two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the number of English students applying to Scottish universities is up, not down. It is actually 33,000. Secondly, of course all those English students who come are able to get maintenance loans and other matters that support them in their university education. If we were to go down the course that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, we would end up absolving from tuition fees all students in their fourth year at all universities in the United Kingdom. We obviously could not do it simply for Scotland. We would have to do it for all fourth-year students wherever they were in the United Kingdom. That would take out of some £27 million the higher education budget, and would not be a sensible use of money.

Mr. Lilley: After challenging his Chancellor's figures, the Prime Minister is now challenging his Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, who yesterday said that there had been a decline in applications north of the border.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to rise above the mess that his Ministers have created, to rise above party argument and to rise above his hostility to the House of Lords. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not correct an injustice and accept the Lords amendment?

The Prime Minister: Because I do not accept that it is an injustice; I think that it is a sensible provision. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, the provisions in Scotland are different from those in England. If we applied them in the way that the right hon. Gentleman wants, we would have to apply them, as I have said, to all fourth-year students in the whole of the United Kingdom. That would add another £27 million to the education bill. It would not be a sensible use of money. English students are, of course, available for the full range of help, which other European Union applicants are not. That is why it is not an unfair or mistaken measure. It is the right measure, and it is fair.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend will know that my constituency includes the poorest ward in England. As education is a key pathway out of poverty, does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement of education zone status made yesterday, and congratulating the Plymouth team which made the successful bid?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I am sure that the innovations that have been introduced in Plymouth will have a great impact on the educational welfare of its children. The greater flexibility within the education system provided by the education action zones will be one of the great pioneering acts of this Government, and it is extremely important that we give it every support. We are delighted that local education authorities are now working with local groups, businesses, parents and schools to provide the best possible education for their children.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why

his promised annual report to the nation has been delayed by two months? Is it due to administrative incompetence or is he embarrassed by all his broken promises?

The Prime Minister: Neither. It will be produced in due course and the hon. Gentleman will see that it is extremely good.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Although it may not be possible in the Scottish Parliament, is it all right, Madam Speaker, if I ask an awkward question, even if it might cause embarrassment to the Government or the party? On the question asked by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), why on earth should students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who are doing a four-year honours course at a Scottish university have to pay up to £1,000 more than students from any other country in the European Union?
Even in the House of Lords last night, when this matter was debated, the Government were gubbed by an even greater margin than Scotland was gubbed by Morocco. When we get a replay of the debate in this House, can we have a free vote, in view of the fact that applications to Scottish universities have gone down by 4.5 per cent. and that the Prime Minister said during the election campaign that Labour had no plans to introduce tuition fees?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to ask an awkward question; indeed, why change the habits of a lifetime? I see before me an interesting alliance.
For the reasons that I have given, we have made the right decision. As for tuition fees, my hon. Friend should not forget that under our proposals, not those of the Conservatives, a third of the poorest students will be absolved from tuition fees altogether and the next third will have them reduced as a result of parental income. We are able to do that, lift the numbers going to university and put more money into the front line of universities precisely because we have had the courage to reform. The Conservatives may be against reform, and so may my hon. Friend, but reform is right and will be carried through, not on a free vote, but on a whipped vote, because it is Government policy.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the Prime Minister clarify what appears to be some schizophrenia in his party's education policy? He said a moment ago that he supports education action zones to bring the worst schools up to the standard of the best and, no doubt, make them centres of excellence. How does he square that with the governors of the London Oratory school, who are on record as saying that Labour policies are trying to destroy schools like theirs by forbidding them to interview parents and pupils and to select from the whole of London, and by forcing them to take in an unspecified number of what are euphemistically called "challenging pupils"? We all know what that means. That will, to use the same word as the London Oratory, "destroy" the excellent basis of those schools.

The Prime Minister: First, the story is nonsense because the Government paper makes it clear that Church schools will continue to be able to interview pupils. The basis of the story is therefore wrong, and always was wrong.


In relation to the rest of the question, I believe that our educational policies are supported by the vast majority of schools, teachers and parents, who want to see the right mixture of pressure and support-pressure to do well, but support and investment in the education system. For years under the Conservative Government, during which time the hon. Lady was a Member of Parliament, support declined as a proportion of our national income. This Government will increase support, as we promised to do.

Ms Jean Corston: Is my right hon. Friend aware that six senior consultants at Bristol royal infirmary have said that they tried to warn local trust managers, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Department of Health that death rates among cardiac child patients at the hospital were too high, but to no avail? Does not that mean that we need not only a health service

that is not open and transparent, but one in which staff can raise legitimate concerns without fear of being ostracised by colleagues or reprimanded by superiors?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I recognise the genuine concern that my hon. Friend has about these issues; indeed, I pay tribute to her work in this area. It is because of those concerns that we are setting up a wide-ranging public inquiry, chaired by Professor Ian Kennedy, to get to the bottom of what went wrong in Bristol and ensure that it does not happen again. We also want greater openness in the national health service. We have said that so-called gagging clauses should be removed from employment contracts. We are opening up trust boards to make them more accountable, and we shall be publishing clinical performance information. 1 think these are all changes that augur well for the future of the national health service.

Sale of Alcohol to Young Persons (Prohibition)

Mr. Paul Truswell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 18 by any person on licensed premises; and for connected purposes.
There is—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Members are very noisy in leaving. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor. It is rather unfair. Please leave quietly.

Mr. Truswell: There is a broad consensus that the licensing laws of this country are outdated, inadequate and in radical need of reform, but I believe that there remains general recognition that the sale of alcohol to young people under the age of 18 should be an offence. Indeed, most people believe that it is an offence, subject to certain established defences. I regret to say that that is not the case. I regret even more deeply that it took the tragic death of my 14-year-old constituent, David Knowles, to show that, in many instances, selling alcohol to young people is not a prosecutable action.
I should like to take a few minutes to relate the circumstances surrounding David's untimely death-circumstances which, I believe, forcefully demonstrate the need to amend the legislation on the sale of alcohol to young people.
David was 14 years old. He attended Priesthorpe school in my constituency. He was not an academic high flier, but he had ambitions to be a bank manager. He came from a supportive middle-class family. Those who knew him described him as "a normally serious boy."
On the fateful evening of 21 March 1997, David had been watching friends play football at school. On the way home, they decided to call off in the centre of Pudsey. His friends, who were still in football gear, asked David to fetch them some alcopops. David agreed, and went to a nearby Thresher off-licence, where he was sold the alcopops that he requested.
A few minutes after returning to his friends, David decided that he wanted some alcohol of his own. He returned to the same Thresher off-licence, and this time was sold four cans of lager. He returned to his friends and they made their way home. In due course, they reached the embankment overlooking the Stanningley bypass in Pudsey. The Stanningley bypass is an extremely busy dual carriageway, which forms part of the Leeds ring road.
At this point, David, who by that time had drunk three and a half cans of lager, suddenly shouted, "Let's run." He charged down the embankment, across the first part of the dual carriageway, over the central reservation and into the Leeds-bound carriageway. There he was struck by a car, and died shortly afterwards from the massive injuries that he sustained.
The police quickly attended the scene. They then went to the Thresher off-licence and seized security videos, which clearly showed David being sold alcohol on two occasions. On the basis of police reports, the Crown Prosecution Service mounted a prosecution

against the two members of staff who had sold the alcohol to David, but it ran into the massive legal black hole which my Bill would close.
The CPS discovered that a prosecution could succeed only against a licence holder or against someone directly employed by him-in the legal term, the servant of the licence holder, who is directly employed by the person whose name appears on the licence. In David's case, the staff who sold him the alcohol were employed by Thresher, a national company, not by the person whose name appeared on the licence. They were thus totally immune from prosecution. It is not necessary to draw the attention of the House to the enormous implications of that loophole.
The definition of the crucial word "servant" was reinforced as recently as December 1996, in the case of Russell v. Director of Public Prosecutions. The Court of Appeal quashed Russell's conviction on the basis that he was employed by a national company, not by the licence holder. Surprisingly, the loophole has been known for several years. In 1968, a pub landlord named Poole left his wife in charge of the bar while he went off to a football match. She sold alcohol to two under-age drinkers, and was prosecuted and convicted, but the conviction was overturned on appeal because the court held that she was not her husband's servant.
Like most people, I was astonished to learn of the loophole. David's distraught father, John Knowles, came to my surgery to bring it to my attention, and I gave him a pledge that I would do everything in my power as a Member of Parliament, and as a parent of young children, to get the loophole closed. Introducing my Bill is one way of fulfilling that pledge. I hope that every hon. Member recognises the need to close that loophole in the law.
My previous private Member's Bill on the matter would have provided a much neater way of closing the loophole. It would simply have amended section 169(1) of the Licensing Act 1964 to include the word "agent", which is much broader than the narrow term "servant", and would have enabled the prosecution of anyone, servant or not, for selling alcohol to a child or young person on licensed premises.
Unfortunately, my Bill, although not opposed by the Government or their business managers, fell to an objection by a Conservative Member. I have yet to receive an explanation of why that happened. I am not casting aspersions on Conservative Members in general, because a number have signed my early-day motion on the issue. What has happened is not a party political matter, but crass behaviour by an individual. This Bill would replace rather than amend section 169(1) of the 1964 Act. Again, the key is the introduction of the word "agent".
The House has enormous powers, but it cannot bring David Knowles back to life. It can, however, recognise and act on the lessons to be learned from his death. It can act to close this huge, gaping chasm in that law-a law which was always intended to protect young people. In doing so, the House would send a signal that it will take all reasonable steps to protect the young.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Truswell, Mr. Harold Best, Mr. Colin Burgon, Mr. Fabian Hamilton and Mr. John Gunnell.

SALE OF ALCOHOL TO YOUNG PERSONS (PROHIBITION)

Mr. Paul Truswell accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 18 by any person on licensed premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 211].

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [23rd June] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Following is the report of the Business Committee [23 June]:
That the allotted sittings at which under the Order [1st June] as amended [17th June] remaining proceedings in Committee of the Whole House are to be completed shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below:—


TABLE


Sitting day
Proceedings


Third day
Clauses 7 to 22


Fourth day
Remaining proceedings

Orders of the Day — Human Rights Bill rds

(Progress reported 17th June)

Considered in Committee [3rd allotted day].

[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 7

PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Edward Gamier: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 4, line 39, leave out 'or tribunal'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'or tribunal' and insert 'sitting with a jury'.
No. 49, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'or tribunal'.
No. 60, in page 5, line 13, at end insert
'and (c) any criminal proceedings'.

Mr. Garnier: I have a suspicion that this will be a longish evening. It my well be that the Under-Secretary and I will have a great deal to say to each other. I trust that we can remain polite and courteous, because, although the issues that he and I will be discussing are complex and deserve full consideration by the House, there will be times when we will become fed up with the sound of our own voices, let alone each other's. I hope that he will be patient with me, and I will endeavour to be courteous and patient with him. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who leads for the Liberal Democrats on this aspect of our legislative programme, will listen with his usual care, and will want to contribute at the appropriate point.
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unduly. I want to concentrate on amendment No. 60, which relates to a matter on which I want clarification from the Government. However, I first remind the House that amendment No. 47 would delete the words "or tribunal" in subsection (1)(a); No. 48 would do the same in subsection (2); and No. 49 would do the same in subsection (5)(b).
Amendment No. 60, which is the more interesting amendment, would add after subsection (5)(b) the words
and (c) any criminal proceedings".
If one looks at clause 7 to see how the amendments fit in, it is clear that there is at least a doubt, which I hope the Minister will be able to resolve, about the full extent of the definition of "legal proceedings" in subsection (5).That subsection states:
'legal proceedings' includes—
(a) proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority;
and
(b) an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal.
Will the Minister say whether subsections (5)(a) and (b) are merely examples of what constitutes legal proceedings, and are not to be taken as an exhaustive list, or whether I have got it the wrong way round and no other categories of legal proceedings can fully be described as coming within the definition?
Will the Minister also tell us whether the proceedings referred to in subsection 5(a)—proceedings that are brought by or at the instigation of a public authority—could include criminal prosecutions brought by prosecuting authorities or bodies entitled to initiate proceedings other than, for example, the Crown Prosecution Service or Her Majesty's Customs and Excise? They are what I would loosely call-I underline the term "loosely"—Government prosecuting agencies.
Do the proceedings referred to in subsection (5)(a) include, for example, private prosecutions brought by supermarkets against shoplifters? I also have in mind the fact that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has the power to initiate prosecutions in the courts. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the gas, electricity and water supply companies can still, with their privatised status, bring prosecutions independently of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
To take the example of the supermarket, would Marks and Spencer, Tesco, Sainsbury or any shopkeeper who wanted to bring a private prosecution for shoplifting be deemed to be a public authority under the definition in clause 6, for the purposes of clause 7(5) and the instigation of proceedings?
I hope that my questions to the Minister have been reasonably clear, and that he has been able to take note of them. In our submission, clause 7(5) needs clarification. Can he give me that clarification now? I will not hold him to it, because he may need to take advice, but I should be grateful if he could give us some indication. If he wants to write to me or to signal the Government's attitude on clause 7(5) in some other acceptable way, I should be happy for him to follow that course. I hope that he will accept these inquiries in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to bring a degree of clarification to this subsection.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I shall deal first with all the amendments, and then with some of the more detailed points put before us by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier).
The general intention of amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 seems to be to exclude tribunals from taking account of the convention rights. To the limited extent that the amendments would achieve that end, we oppose them.
I remind the Committee that one of the Bill's key principles is that all courts and tribunals should take account of convention rights whenever they are relevant to the case before them. Otherwise, people would have no access to their rights unless they went to the European Court of Human Rights or to the Commission. We shall ensure that individuals can rely on their convention rights and have access to them at the earliest opportunity. We shall also make the convention rights an integral part of our legal system.
One of the many drawbacks of the current arrangements is that the convention rights are cut off from people in the United Kingdom and viewed as something alien to us. In bringing rights home, we want everyone in Britain to view the basic principles set out in the convention as part of their national heritage. We shall not achieve that by practising an internal system of apartheid, keeping the convention rights as the exclusive preserve of the courts. That way, people will continue to see those rights as separate from their daily lives, not as something intrinsic to them.
It is in keeping with that principle that tribunals as well as courts are required by clause 3 to read and give effect to legislation as far as possible in a way that is compatible with the convention rights. It is also in keeping with that principle that tribunals should be able to take account of the convention rights when a person alleges that he or she has been the victim of an unlawful act by a public authority. Against that background, I shall deal with the detail of the amendments.
Amendment No. 49 is concerned with the definition of "legal proceedings" in clause 7(1)(b). It is our expectation that the great majority of cases in which the convention arguments are raised will fall within the scope of such proceedings. That is because, in most cases, it is likely that a victim of an act made unlawful by clause 6(1) will have available to him an existing course of action or other means of legal challenge, such as a judicial review.
Furthermore, in a significant proportion of such cases, a tribunal, not a court, will be the forum in which a case is brought. Social security, employment, housing and immigration are but a few of the many areas where tribunals handle the bulk of cases.
Amendment No. 49 seeks to amend the definition of legal proceedings so as to exclude appeals against the decision of a tribunal. Whether intended or not, the amendment does not preclude tribunals themselves from taking account of convention rights. For reasons that I have already explained, that, in a sense, is a point in its favour.
To prevent individuals from raising convention points in tribunals would cause unnecessary delay, expense and frustration. How would they be expected to raise them on appeal? However, the amendment might prevent a court hearing an appeal from a tribunal from having regard to the convention rights. However, given the inclusive definition of clause 7(5), that is not at all clear.
That may be a non-intended set of outcomes. If one has concerns about the ability of tribunals to deal with convention issues, one should surely wish people to be able to rely on their convention rights when the matter is appealed up to the appropriate court.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 relate to cases brought under clause 7(1)(a)—that is, cases brought solely on convention grounds. As I have said, we expect that such cases will be relatively infrequent, but where they do arise, it is likely that a tribunal will sometimes be the most appropriate forum for hearing the case.
If the case concerns a subject which is usually heard, in the first instance, by a tribunal, there is a good prima facie case for assuming that a tribunal will be the correct place in which to hear the convention case. The two amendments will prevent a tribunal from being designated for such a purpose.


Amendment No. 48 goes even further, by requiring that the venue must be a sitting court with a jury. Such a requirement seems so bizarre that I do not think that it is intended to be taken entirely seriously. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not put it strongly, and made it clear that he is merely trying to ascertain some information rather than to press the points. If the Opposition were to press the amendment seriously, I could only imagine that they were trying to make proceedings under clause 7(1)(a) unwieldy, making it a wrecking amendment.
The Government are fully aware that the Human Rights Bill will bring about major changes for the legal professions.
We do not for one moment underestimate the amount of preparatory work that will have to be undertaken to ensure that both courts and tribunals are able to handle the convention issues that will come before them. I assure the Committee that the training issue is being taken very seriously, and that we will not bring the Bill into force until we are confident that the legal system is in a position to cope with the changes.
Amendment No. 60 would amend the definition in clause 7(5) of the term "legal proceedings", as used in clause 7(1)(b), by stating specifically that the term should include "any criminal proceedings". The amendment is unnecessary, because the wording of clause 7(5) already covers such proceedings. It uses the word "includes", and is therefore not—in answer to one of the questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—an exhaustive definition. As "includes" is in the clause, we think that the matter is already covered. I hope that that deals with the first of his questions.
The vast majority of criminal proceedings will be caught directly by clause 7(5)(a), as they are
proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority".
The very few private prosecutions that are undertaken will also be caught by clause 7(5)—as it is an inclusive definition, and such prosecutions would be regarded as legal proceedings. In such cases, the private prosecutor would not be a public authority, although the court, as a public authority, would be required to act not incompatibly with the convention rights. Therefore, Tesco, for example, would not become a public authority. The court itself will be required to take account of the convention rights.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern is whether clause 7 covers criminal proceedings, I can assure him that it does. It will be possible for individuals to rely on their convention rights in criminal proceedings as in other proceedings.
I should make it clear also that the RSPCA—which the hon. and learned Member mentioned—will be performing a public act when that act has a statutory basis. Although it will be a matter for the court to decide whether it is behaving as a public authority, it may be doing so if it is acting on a basis conferred by statute. Tesco, for example, would not be acting as a public authority, although, as I said, the court must take account of the convention in reaching any decision.
In view of those comments, I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 47.

Mr. Garnier: I thank the Minister for that very helpful response to my inquiries, and I trust that we can proceed

throughout today in such a manner. It will be of value to supermarket companies and similar bodies to read his comments on the public authority point. Supermarkets will not be deemed to be public authorities, unlike the court in which they bring private prosecutions.
The Minister correctly assessed my opinion of the amendments by pointing out that I did not spend much time on amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49, but spent most of it on amendment No. 60.
In view of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 50, page 4, line 42, at end insert
'or he can demonstrate that he is acting on behalf of a victim or potential victim of an unlawful act'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, page 5, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
'(3) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent an applicant from bringing an application for judicial review provided that the court considers that he has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.'
No. 52, page 5, line 6, at end insert
`or he can demonstrate that he is acting on behalf of a victim or potential victim of an unlawful act'.
No. 141, page 5, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert
'(4) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent an applicant from bringing a petition for judicial review in Scotland provided that the court considers that he has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the petition relates.'.
No. 53, page 5, line 9, at end insert
'or he can demonstrate that he is acting on behalf of a victim or potential victim of an unlawful act'.
No. 43, page 5, line 14, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

Mr. Garnier: I hope that the Committee is now entering into a discussion that will be of wider interest, not only to the Minister and me but to other members of this very popular Committee. It is perhaps a pity that we are rather thinly attended today, as some of the matters that we will be debating are supremely important to the future of the United Kingdom constitution.
The Minister and I know each other quite well. We have travelled as far as the Falklands together in pursuit of knowledge of military affairs. We almost spent a night together in a tent on Salisbury plain, but that is another story. However, from my time spent with him, both in this Committee and on other occasions, I know that both he and I take the development of our constitution with great seriousness. Although we may differ on the way in which the Government are dealing with the constitution at the moment, we are men of good will and respect each other's views. However, we shall have more between us during the discussion that we are about to begin.
4 pm
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 50, 52 and 53. I shall leave the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) to develop his own arguments in support of amendments Nos. 42, 141 and


43, which were tabled by him and his right hon. and hon. Friends. I suspect that he will do it rather better than I could.
The right hon. Member and I share the desire to widen the clause to allow a rather more flexible approach to the question of who may bring proceedings under the Bill. When similar amendments were discussed in another place on 24 November 1997, the lead speech was made by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Let me place on the record my gratitude for the way in which he expressed these matters in another place. I should also like to place on the record my thanks to Mr. Francis Bennion for the assistance that he has given me, although he may not realise it, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who unfortunately cannot be here today.
If I should say anything that conflicts with the views of Lord Lester, my noble Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North—East Bedfordshire or Mr. Francis Bennion, that is my fault and not theirs. I do not wish anything that I say to be taken as a reflection of their views; none the less, I found all they have said and written in the recent past extremely helpful in developing my arguments in support of the amendments.
Let me briefly outline the amendments of the official Opposition before seeking to develop my submission in support of them. Amendment No. 50 invites the Committee to amend clause 7 by inserting at the end the words:
or he can demonstrate that he is acting on behalf of a victim or potential victim of an unlawful act".
That phrase fits in very neatly at the bottom of page 4, which sets out who may bring proceedings under the Bill.
Clause 7(1) reads:
A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—
(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,
The clause adds the following words, which the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and I jointly find too restricting:
but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act".
We wish to add after that:
or he can demonstrate that he is acting on behalf of the victim or potential victim of an unlawful act.
Amendment No. 52 would add the same words to subsection (3), which says:
If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant is to be taken to have a sufficient interest in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act.
Amendment No. 53 would add the same words to the end of subsection (4), which deals with the equivalent procedure in the courts of Scotland. It says:
If the proceedings are made by way of, a petition for judicial review in Scotland, the applicant shall be taken to have title and interest to sue in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act.

We want to liberalise the regime under which proceedings can be brought under the Act by persons other than the victim of the unlawful act complained of.
The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross broadly reflect those tabled by Lord Lester, as, to some extent, do the Conservative amendments. Lord Lester's amendments were designed to remove what he regarded as
the unnecessarily legalistic restrictions in Clause 7 on the standing"—
that is, the legal standing or the locus—
needed to apply for judicial review where convention rights are at stake.
He added:
They are, I hope, in accordance with the Bill's philosophy; namely, that of seeking to confer collateral advantages rather than to undermine the principles of the Bill.
I should like to borrow Lord Lester's sentiments in support of the Conservative amendments. We hope that the Government agree that we are not trying to put words in the Bill that would destroy its effect or undermine its principle. In no sense should the amendments be seen as an attempt to wreck the clause, still less the Bill. I am glad to see the Minister nodding and accepting our good faith.
Lord Lester continued:
There is a curious anomaly in the Bill as it stands. It is traditionally British in its main principles respecting both the English constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the need to provide effective British judicial remedies for breaches of convention rights. The Bill is also British in empowering all our courts and tribunals to interpret and apply the convention rather than to establish a special constitutional court. The Bill is British, too, in requiring our courts to take into account the European jurisprudence from Strasbourg but not to be ruled by it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 823.]
Clause 2(1) says:
A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention right must take into account—
(a) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights".
It does not say that UK courts must be bound by a decision, judgment, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. Under the Bill, we retain for our courts an ability to develop their own jurisprudence, although they will be guided by the judgments and so on of the European Court.
Having said all that, the problem we see is that the clause—

Mr. John Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is a substantial difference between a requirement to "take account of' and a requirement to be "guided by"? I do not wish to quibble with my hon. and learned Friend's use of language, which is always exemplary, but I should be grateful for that clarification on this occasion.

Mr. Garnier: One always has to be careful about loose language when dealing with complicated concepts of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is a man of huge intellectual capacity, need not be frightened of not being legally qualified. Anyone with a first-class degree from an English university deserves to be listened to with care. His point is, I hope, a good one.


I am seeking to draw the Committee's attention to the provisions of clause 2(1). I do not want to go too far down that route, because, sadly, we moved on from that clause several days ago. My point is that English courts—I use the word "English" as shorthand for the United Kingdom—are required only to "take account". The Bill says that they
must take into account any—
(a) judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights.
That is what the law will say, because the likelihood is that the Bill will be enacted.
I talked about guidance. I do not know that there is a great deal of difference between the phrases "take into account" and "guidance". If my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham thinks that there is, I will be happy to give way to him again. I do not want to get too hung up on that semantic discussion, because we have a certain amount to do in trying to persuade the Government of the cogency and good sense of our amendments, which I know that my hon. Friend will want to support with all the vigour at his command.

Mr. John M. Taylor: There is no shortage of that.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is right. Vigour is not a commodity of which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is short.
I want the Government to explain why they have drafted clause 7 in such a way as to create an anomaly. Instead of relying on the well-developed public law concept—the judicial review concept—of legal standing for judicial review and other proceedings, the Bill seems to import a test of legal standing derived from the concept of a victim to be used by the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting and applying article 34 of the convention, as it will be when it is amended by the 11th protocol.
In the notes on clauses prepared by the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department, the explanation of clause 7(3) suggests that the purpose of the sufficient interest test in judicial review proceedings is that an applicant can seek judicial review of the act of a public authority on the grounds that the act is unlawful under the Bill
only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act.
The notes on clauses also say:
This means that the ability to apply for judicial review on convention grounds, which is narrower than for judicial review application, otherwise corresponds to the standing or locus test under Article 34 of the convention itself for bringing complaints to the European Court of Human Rights".
Sadly, the notes on clauses do not explain the reasons for that, and the mischief that we perceive is not dealt with.
The Government seem to have narrowed the well-developed English public law and Scots judicial review concepts of sufficient interest, which were adopted by Parliament and developed by our courts.
4.15 pm
It is not in the least controversial to say that the convention is a treaty. Domestic law requires our courts to construe a treaty in the same way as courts in other

countries. As the right hon. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in a speech before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in the case "Re H and others (minors) (abduction: acquiescence)", which is reported in volume 2 of the 1997 All England reports:
an international convention, expressed in different languages and intended to apply to a wide range of differing legal systems, cannot be construed differently in different jurisdictions. The convention must have the same meaning and effect under the laws of all contracting states.
The Bill is confused on that point. It refers throughout to "the Convention rights" and defines those as the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the convention,
as read with articles 16 to 18.
If the convention rights are to have the same meaning as that found by the Strasbourg Court, the cited articles must be read along with the entirety of the convention, not merely articles 16 to 18. Our courts will have to make sense of the specified articles.
I respectfully suggest that Government spokesmen on the Bill have constantly diverted questions about its legal meaning by saying that they must be left to the courts to decide. However, the courts cannot successfully operate in a vacuum. What are they to conclude when they are told that they must not consider the1 entire convention?
Those articles need to be read with the preamble, which invokes the universal declaration of human rights and explains the convention's purpose. They also need to be read with article 1, which demands:
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1",
making it clear that it is the European states themselves—and no one else—which have the duty of obeying the obligations imposed by the convention.
The articles also need to be read with article 34, which the Minister will know used to be article 25, which states that the court may receive applications
from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention.
The effect of that has been described by three of the leading academic lawyers on the European convention—Messrs Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick—in their well-known textbook, "Law on the European Convention on Human Rights", published in 1995. On page 630, they say, as I am sure the Minister will be aware:
While 'non-governmental organisations' and 'groups of individuals' are broad categories they do not cover, for example, bodies such as municipalities, other local government organisations or semi-state bodies.
Even the word "person" in article 34 does not include one of those bodies, which therefore cannot object that the United Kingdom has infringed its rights.
Because the presumption from the wording of clause 1 of the Bill is that the specified articles are not to be read with the rest of the convention, it seems—at least to me—that our judges are meant to have a free hand in construing them. That is confirmed by clause 2, which requires a court applying a convention article to take into account rulings on its meaning given by the Strasbourg Court, without being bound by them. That is in line with the civil law, which has no doctrine of binding precedent. It permits allowance to be made for the margin of


appreciation that is permitted under the convention jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor said on that subject in the other place:
Our courts must be free to develop human rights juris prudence by taking into account European judgments and decisions, but they must also be free to distinguish them and to move out in new directions in relation to the whole area of human rights".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 835.]
We seem to be considering a free-standing Bill. Will the rights that it protects be exactly the same as the rights protected at Strasbourg? The answer, on that analysis, must be no. Will the Bill become a mirror-image Act? Who will be able to apply to our courts to have their rights protected? Not everyone is entitled to go to Strasbourg, so will the same exclusionary rules govern an application under the Bill?
If the Bill were intended to be a mirror image of the convention, one would expect clause 7 to be equivalent to article 34 of the convention, but we do not see that. Instead, clause 7(1) states—with one caveat—that any person with a claim will be entitled to pursue it. Person is used in its wide English law meaning to include all natural and artificial persons; it does not have the narrower meaning that is applicable to article 34.
The caveat is that the applicant
is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.
We are told in clause 7(6) what that means:
a person is a victim … only if he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention",
which is not exactly helpful. We are finally brought back to article 34, but the position is not as clear as it could be.
The Government's notes on clauses say of clause 7(6):
This attracts the Convention jurisprudence on 'victim'. In particular, the person must be directly affected by the act.
The suspicion is that the talk of a victim is intended to exclude persons indirectly affected, such as interest groups, but that it does not have in mind the exclusion of directly affected persons of the wrong type, such as local authorities. That reading is borne out by the Lord Chancellor's remarks in the other place. He said:
The wording of clause 7 therefore reflects the terms of the convention, which stipulates that petitions … will be ruled inadmissible unless the applicant is the victim of the alleged violation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 831.]
For a certain answer to that, we may have to wait until some body such as a local authority tries—as no doubt one will-to bring a claim under the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that point.
Under the English judicial review system, as set out in section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the jurisdictional requirement for an applicant to apply for judicial review of administrative action is simply one of sufficient interest. That test of sufficient interest is included in the order 53, rule 3, of the rules of the Supreme Court. As I understand it, the test also applies in Scottish law, although the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will no doubt tell us about that.
Our courts have wisely interpreted the test of sufficient interest to allow public interest groups—they are all well known to us—to bring cases in their own name on behalf

of the class of people who are directly affected by laws and regulations. That has the advantage of enabling all the relevant matters at issue to be determined together and at an early stage to clarify whether there has been a misuse of public powers, including an abuse involving a violation of human rights.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am listening with care to my hon. and learned Friend, who is explaining the amendments with great clarity, but I want to be sure that I understand him correctly. Does he agree that what is to occur will not in practice give a mirror image of what the European Court would do? It is part of the structure of the European Court that there should be a margin of appreciation on the application of convention rights inside each of the member states that are parties to the convention.
Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that courts in the United Kingdom should develop that margin of appreciation, and that that margin of appreciation will sometimes best be developed where public interest groups that have a sufficient interest are able to bring proceedings?

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The position is even worse than he and I feared. The Bill as drafted leaves the public authority, or the UK Government, with no right of appeal to Strasbourg, whereas the citizen has such a right. There is inequality of access to Strasbourg. The problem will be made worse if the British courts create a jurisprudence defined by their understanding of the margin of appreciation which differs from the understanding handed down by Strasbourg, and there will be nothing that the public authority or the Government can do. Eventually, a series of conflicts will build up. [Interruption.]Let me put aside my bleeper, and switch off my Mandelsonian character development machine. I must not allow myself to be put off by Government propaganda.
I fear that a jurisprudential conflict will develop between Strasbourg and the English courts. We have heard that clause 2(1) does not require English courts to accept by rote the jurisprudence of Strasbourg. As I said a few weeks ago, there seems to be great potential for conflict between the courts and Parliament. I shall come later to the conflict between both Houses of Parliament and the Executive. We are lining up constitutional struggles of some importance.

Mr. Bercow: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has fully understood that exchange, but, to avoid doubt, may I establish whether my hon. and learned Friend is telling us that there are circumstances in which a public authority, having suffered an adverse judgment in the domestic courts, could ignore that judgment and, if criticised for doing so, could say that it should not be criticised because it had no right of appeal in Europe?

Mr. Garnier: I shall, if I may, avoid answering that question on the hoof.
We confront a series of collisions, which we all want to avoid. That is why I responded as I did to the previous intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham ought to be aware of the danger. Under the judicial review


proceedings available in the divisional court, a wide group of applicants are entitled to apply to demonstrate a proper and sufficient interest. Under clause 7, a whole host of interest groups—it does not matter whether my hon. Friend or I agree with their aims—will be denied access to the courts. Consequently, a great many of the disadvantaged in our society, who have until now been protected by those interest groups, will be denied access to the courts.
In the other place, the Lord Chancellor said that we should not worry about that, because he had no doubt that the courts would allow the individual victim to be assisted by interest groups. He also said that individual victims might be assisted not only by interest groups paying for lawyers to present their cases but by such groups being allowed to put in written briefs to the court. In response to an intervention from, I think, my noble Friend Lord Coleraine, he said that it might be possible for interest groups to make brief oral submissions.
In our submission—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham agrees—that is unnecessarily clumsy. If we want the convention, once introduced into British law, to do what the Government say that they want it to do and bring human rights home—I disagree with the underlying premise—we must build into the Bill sufficient machinery to allow the people whose rights will be trampled on to gain access to the courts to test the question.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting point. He will forgive my ignorance if I expose it in this question, but if, as proposed, only the victim of an unlawful act were unable to bring proceedings under clause 7, would that circumscribe the extent of the proceedings that the victim could bring? Under the construction proposed by our amendments, where a sufficient interest was proved by, for example, a public interest group, that group might be able to explore the full bounds of potential incompatibility between UK legislation and convention rights, rather than being circumscribed to something narrower.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. As drafted, the Bill could lead to an unnecessary multiplicity of cases. If interest groups such as Liberty or Justice back and present a case, they can not only deal with the case of the immediate victim but go beyond that and explain to the court the implications of the breach of the convention right involved. Mr. Jones is interested only in Mr. Jones's problem. In dealing with Mr. Jones's problem, the court will be strict to consider only his problem and not wander too widely into the broader issues. Groups such as Justice can come at a case with a far wider perspective and knowledge, and—although the court need not necessarily take account of it—they can do so with the human, intellectual and financial resources to ensure that every aspect of the case is dealt with properly and adequately.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. Is there not another argument to support his amendments? If an individual brought proceedings under clause 7, but passed away before they had commenced or before they were concluded, a wider

category of persons would be needed to pursue the proceedings to a conclusion. Is that not another reason why these amendments are of the utmost importance?

Mr. Edward Leigh: Duff point.

Mr. Garnier: I heard my hon. Friend say sotto voce that that was a duff point. I trust that he will be able to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham why he used such unkind language. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham are certainly worthy of consideration, and I am delighted that he is here to put them before the Committee.
I shall attempt to bring some finality to my remarks, at least on this subject, so that other Members can contribute. I know that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross wishes to make some points on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, in addition to the ones that I have stolen from them.
I want to return to the reasonable and workable nature of the sufficient interest test as it has been developed by our courts, and look at the other side of the question, which is the somewhat obscure position that will be created if the European convention test of victim is imported for cases under clause 7, but not for other judicial review proceedings. It will then be necessary for our courts to have regard, not to our well-tried and tested case law on the sufficient interest test, but to a complex body of Strasbourg case law developed for the quite different purpose of interpreting a provision of the convention that will disappear next year, when protocol 11 brings into existence the new court with new procedures.
As Lord Lester said in Committee in the other place:
The Bill deliberately excludes the procedural rules of the European Court of Human Rights which allow third party interventions by bodies such as the Post Office Engineering Union (in Malone), or MIND (in Ashingdane), or the International Press Institute (in Lingens), or Justice (in Monnell v. Morris), or Amnesty International …, or the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission for Human Rights, Liberty, and the Committee on the Administration of Justice (in Brannigan and McBride), or the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (in Open Door and Dublin Well Woman).
It is well established that a public authority such as the EOC"—
that is, the Equal Opportunities Commission—
has no standing to bring a case as a victim under the convention. What that means is that the EOC
or any other representative body
will be prevented by clause 7 from intervening as an amicus curiae, or third party, to represent the wider public interest if they seek to rely on convention rights in any legal proceedings.
I agree with Lord Lester. He said:
that anomaly is highlighted by the fact that, under Clause 5, the Bill gives the Crown the right to intervene where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility. Yet other public authorities or public interest organisations are to have no such right of third party intervention. I do not see any justification for placing the Government in that uniquely privileged position, depriving the courts of the benefit of other third party interventions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 825-26.]
The problem does not stop there. The existing Strasbourg jurisprudence on what constitutes a "victim" is not at all clear, and the Lord Chancellor did not give an answer of anything like the quality expected of a


lawyer of his eminence. In effect, his answer consisted of, "I have said what I have said, and that will do." Why are the Government following European case law, rather than using the well-understood English statutory test of sufficient interest, when, as Lord Lester demonstrated, there is insufficient uniformity of view in Strasbourg about what constitutes a victim?
Will the Minister provide the Committee with a clear and, if not convincing, at least respectable explanation for the decision to exclude certain persons and to narrow the category of applicant before the court in cases under the Bill to persons described as victims of the unlawful act; and the decision not to allow, as they should, persons who can demonstrate that they are
acting on behalf of a victim or potential victim of an unlawful act.
to come before the court to argue, to explain and to reveal to the court the widest implications of the case?

Mr. John M. Taylor: I apologise for not being able to attend all the debate; I had commitments in the Committee Corridor. I am probably the least knowledgeable Member in the Chamber about the matters that we are debating.
If we are talking about rights of access to a judicial forum, it is important to have great certainty about who may be a party and who may initiate proceedings. I should like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) to tell me from the Opposition Dispatch Box whether he feels that there is enough definition or whether he thinks there is potential for aggrieved parties who should be heard before the appropriate tribunal to be excluded and not have the access that they should? Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied? It is very likely that if he is satisfied, I shall be. If he is not satisfied, I shall return to the charge.

Mr. Garnier: I think that my hon. Friend may have provided me with a way out in responding to his intervention. He candidly admitted that he has not been able to attend the entire debate. It may well be that you, Mr. Martin, would explode if I were to repeat what I have said over the past half hour. I have only a moderate affection for the sound of my own voice. I am about to demonstrate that by resuming my place.
My hon. Friend was perfectly right to ask the question, and I hope that he will not think me offensive if I suggest that, if he reads tomorrow's Hansard, he may find an answer somewhere that deals with his point. His intervention will become all the more telling if we do not get a proper explanation from the Government about why they are not prepared to accept my amendment or the amendments of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. In my view, the Lord Chancellor failed to give an explanation. Having been rude to the Lord Chancellor, perhaps I should conclude my remarks. I know that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and others will be wishing to catch your eye, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I must begin by expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for his speech, not least for the fact that he openly stated, with due acknowledgement,

that he was plumbing or drawing heavily on the arguments used by my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in another place. As he has done so, he greatly simplifies my task.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to imply that there was a penumbra of Liberal Democrat argumentation that had not been developed either in his speech or in that of my noble Friend. The Committee will be relieved to hear that that is not the case. It will not be necessary, as a result of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, for me to take anything like as long as he thought it right to do. I make no complaint about that, because I thought his points were very well taken.
The only risk in our treatment of this subject, which is the right to bring proceedings, and in following the close legal argumentation that the hon. and learned Gentleman deployed, is that the public might consider that there is simply an arcane lawyer's point at issue. I would wish to make the strong political point that the purpose of my amendments, and I believe that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, is to make an important public interest point. It is to ensure that the rights of the convention are readily available to all who may have suffered by having their rights ignored or flouted by a public authority. In seeking to determine issues. the courts should have in front of them the best possible arguments from the public authority and those who have a reasonable or, in the normal language of administrative law, sufficient interest in the issue before those courts.
4.45 pm
I have tried to understand what lies behind the Government's strange departure from the normal British rules governing standing in administrative law cases. It is hard to understand, because the matter was not fully explained in another place in that important debate. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough pointed out, this is a very British Bill. It seeks to offer British judicial remedies for breaches of convention rights. It seeks to allow the courts to consider European jurisprudence, but not to be governed by it. However, it allows public law concepts of the domestic laws of Scotland and England not to be the rule that will be applied here.
Clause 7(3) imports into our law a vague concept from the jurisprudence of the courts of Strasbourg. Anything that makes it more difficult to determine whether there is an interest is contrary to the Government's underlying intention, as I perceive it, to bring rights home and to provide British remedies for their infringement. One might speculate that the reason for using that concept is that the Government are afraid of the involvement of interest groups in these actions leading to a raft of test cases increasing the work of the courts where those interest groups perceive a possible public wrong and wish to have something done about it. In other words, they might seek to stir up apathy, to use the memorable words of Lord Whitelaw.

Mr. Bercow: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the Government's motives in drafting the Bill is correct, but does he, as a distinguished advocate, agree that, if the Government's objection is that they fear a proliferation of what he describes as test cases and of public interest group agitation, that is not a good reason for the Government to oppose the amendments?


They appear to be saying that the outcome would be all too time-consuming, troublesome and costly, and they want none of it. That is not a very democratic attitude, is it?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman made what might have been, had he not spoken, the next paragraph of my speech. I am only too delighted on this occasion, as I was earlier, to acknowledge my debt to members of the official Opposition for making my case for me.
There is concern in the Government that, bearing in mind the difficulties faced by the legal aid fund and the uncertainty of what is opened up by this new and all-embracing law, they should be as cautious as possible in approaching these remedies.
I disclaim the compliment from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow); I am not, in any sense, a great advocate. I am a barrister by training who has long ceased to practise, and I no longer view these matters with the practitioner's cast of mind. However, in my opinion, the risk is precisely the converse of that which seems to motivate the Government. The risk is that more actions will be taken by individuals, with or without the advice of the interested and informed interest groups that are capable of giving advice, and that from the Bill's enactment will flow a proliferation of litigation that might have been avoided had the full range of issues pertinent to the consideration of a specific case, such as those mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, been deployed by an interested party.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is on the threshold of one of the most worrying aspects of modern litigation. Since Pepper v. Hart, no civil action is brought before all parliamentary stages of legislation have been minutely examined. Nowadays, it seems that no piece of litigation is complete until each side has reported the other to the Law Society. Now the right hon. Gentleman is giving us the prospect that no litigation will be complete until it has had its lap in Strasbourg, or, under this law, had that lap translated back into the UK, and it has had its human rights aspects duly examined. Are we, on a wide general front, on something of a slippery and expensive litigious slope?

Mr. Maclennan: I profoundly hope not, because part of the purpose of incorporating the convention in the Bill is to discourage activity that would give rise to a claim that a right had been infringed. Indeed, I would not expect that there would be a great number of violations of people's fundamental rights and freedoms in this country. I believe that our public authorities are alive to these issues. They are becoming more alive to them, and it is unlikely that they will lay themselves open to charges of having infringed fundamental rights and freedoms.
I would acknowledge this much, however. Possibly, in the early years, before the courts have come to terms with some of the bigger issues that arise, there may be many cases. A certain amount of attention is being given to the need to train our judges to manage those matters; money is spent on that.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. I admire the respect for our institutions that leads him to expect that there would not

be many frivolous or vexatious cases. I admire his approach, and I wish that we lived in such a world. Does he agree that our recent experience of the sunburst of judicial review is not very comforting to his line of argument? It tends pretty much in the opposite direction. People will dispute matters with public authorities, and will waste no time in doing so; they will throw the kitchen sink at them.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's line of argument on that, and I would distinguish between the matters that have come under judicial review and matters that might come under review as a result of the Bill's passage. The breach of a fundamental right and freedom is not a small matter which may flow from wrong use of a discretionary power by an authority, which would currently be likely to be considered. Fundamental rights and freedoms are very substantial and visible. It is not easy to breach someone's fundamental right and freedom in the dark and without deliberation. I believe that, because of that element of deliberation, it will be anticipated where such conflicts may arise. I do not expect that there will be a large expansion in the work of the courts, certainly after the first few years of people, as it were, having a go.
It would be particularly advantageous if it were possible in those first years for interest groups such as Liberty—the National Council for Civil Liberties—and Justice, and organisations such as Victim Support, Amnesty International and the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to have the right to come forward as interested parties. A peculiarly unhappy result of what is proposed is that they might even be excluded from roles as amicus curiae.
Amendment No. 42 would not only reinstate the existing law of this country with regard to standing in judicial review matters; it is a conservative amendment which would ensure that the provisions of section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 were maintained in the new circumstances and reinstate what I understood to be the Labour party's position on these matters before it took office. The consultation paper "Bringing Rights Home" intended that public interest cases should be taken by bodies such as those that I have mentioned.
The importance of that is, if anything, made greater by the Government's reluctance to acknowledge the case for a human rights commissioner, which is one departure from an agreement entered into by my party and the Labour party before the general election, and about which I am particularly regretful. The issue cannot be discussed during debates on the Bill because of the tight drafting of the long title, but it is germane to the importance of the amendment. If there is no human rights commissioner and it is necessary for individuals to establish that they are victims—not just that they have a substantial interest—I fear that we may find that, in bringing rights home, we have narrowed the safeguards, rather than widened them.
I hope that that is not a position to which the Government wish to stick for a long time, and that the months since the debate in November, to which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred, have passed with fruitful deliberation on what was said. If so, we shall hear tonight that the Government are prepared to reconsider. For reasons of administration of justice, it would be wise to do so.


The policy behind what the Government are putting forward has never been made clear in any way. Legal argument about the importation of article 34 of the European convention on human rights into our rules has been deployed, but it seems strangely out of key with the approach to the procedural and substantive rules, which, in the rest of the Bill, rely heavily on the procedures and practices of our common law and statute law, not on the procedures of Strasbourg.

Mr. Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman has explored the reasoning behind the Government's approach. It may, in their terms, inhibit a number of public interest cases, or prevent what they might regard as an excessive number of such cases from being brought. As the Lord Chancellor said in the other place, the Government have not presented such an argument; their view is that a sufficient number of public interest cases would be brought on behalf of victims or by virtue of some separate public interest fund. To reinforce his argument, does he agree that one wonders what is their argument? The Government do not treat that as the argument. One wonders what their argument is.

5 pm

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned the Lord Chancellor's statement that he did not envisage those interest groups being absent from the proceedings, because they might be there to assist individuals. My view is that they should be there in a different role—to assist the court. That, in itself, would help the proceedings. Of course, in some cases, if they took a case because they had a sufficient interest, they would be in adversarial proceedings. However, in the wider context of the settlement of an issue or a point of law, the exclusion of interest groups is most unfortunate, both for the individual whose case might be taken up and for our system of justice.
I do not want to speak for even half as long as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. He made an excellent speech and I found it entirely possible to adopt his reasoning on points that I do not want to raise myself.
The speech by Lord Lester of Herne Hill was a classic of its kind. He deployed his arguments with great beauty and force. He referred to one or two matters that should be noted in this House. Of particular interest was his quotation from the fifth edition of the authoritative work "Judicial Review of Administrative Action". On the question of sufficient interest in our law, Lord Woolf and Professor Jeffrey Jowell's observations in their book effectively bring home what this is all about. They said that the sufficient interest test
has to receive a generous interpretation. It has to be treated as a broad and flexible test … A great variety of factors are capable of qualifying as sufficient interest. They are not confined to property or financial or other legal interests. They can include civic (or community), environmental and cultural interests"—

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: Not in the middle of a quotation.
The authors continued:
"The gravity of the issue which is the subject of the application is a factor taken into account in determining the outcome of questions of standing. The more serious issue at stake the less significance will be attached to arguments based on the applicant's alleged lack of standing."

Mr. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Maclennan: Of course I will give way, as I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier.

Mr. Taylor: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman in the middle of a quotation. He is the only Member of Parliament who is able to speak in paragraphs. The late Victor Borge was able to speak in paragraphs.
The right hon. Gentleman, with all his knowledge, seems still to take a pretty limited view of the number of people who will come and help themselves to this process. He courteously allowed me to intervene earlier on the issue of judicial review. Judicial review is a huge growth industry, and there is a distinct read across to these provisions. When I was in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Lord Chancellor was judicially reviewed about three times by the Law Society. The Department for Education and Employment is frequently judicially reviewed.
I reckon that I have about 35 constituents, who write letters to me in green ink, who will burst through the door the moment the Bill has Royal Assent. I dare say that many other hon. Members have similar constituents. The point that has not been clarified is the number of people who will assail this process the moment they are given the chance. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any sense of the scale.

Mr. Maclennan: I shall make three quick points in response to the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I had better not give way again. First, I do not have many constituents who write to me in ink, never mind in green ink. Secondly, I am speaking in support of the amendment tabled by Conservative Members, who do not want people whose fundamental rights and freedoms have been denied to be deprived of a remedy in our domestic courts even if, as a result, the litigation dealt with by our courts increased.
Thirdly, we can merely speculate about the consequent volumetric increase in litigation. I have tried to distinguish between the position in the wide area of administration law, with the expansion of judicial review, and the position with regard to fundamental rights and freedoms. I do not believe that in this country—the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) has already agreed with me on this point—we live in a society in which fundamental rights and freedoms are breached with great regularity or frequency. At the beginning of the process, some people may believe that they are breached more often than occurs.
I rest my case on the argument that we should not narrow the right of access to the courts artificially, and in so doing utilise a procedural rule to bring about such an


undesirable end that is as uncertain as are the interpretations of who, under Strasbourg jurisprudence, are victims.

Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the way in which the criterion of sufficient interest in amendment No. 42 could be satisfied. Does he agree that, in seeking to bring a case, a family member would almost certainly satisfy the criterion of sufficient interest?

Mr. Maclennan: I suspect that that is so, but the issue which we must address is who would satisfy the test of victim under the Government's proposals. That is where the anxiety lies. How narrowly will this new procedural arrangement be interpreted?
I have made the main points that I wanted to make. I am rather eager to hear the Government's views, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Leigh: The Committee owes a debt to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) for raising this matter, because it has shed light on a vital part of the Bill. Why do I say that? In our debates last week, I drew attention to an anomaly in the Bill. Clause 7(3) is specific about who can sue, whereas clause 6 is unclear about who can be sued. As I have previously argued, the Government have given insufficient attention to the definition of a "public body". As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) has well argued in his interventions, that is vital to the bodies, many of which are small, quasi-public bodies, that are worried that they could be the subject of expensive litigation.
The argument is important. The Bill does not simply incorporate the convention into our law; it creates an entirely new Bill of Rights. We shall not simply bring the convention into our law and accept the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights; rather, we shall effectively give British judges the right to build up a new volume of jurisprudence. Those are points that I have argued again and again, and they are the points that worry particular groups. That is why I oppose incorporation of the convention.
I have summarised the general worry; we are now exploring a strange dichotomy. I can understand why the Government are specific about who can sue, and I support their position this afternoon, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull. There is a grave danger that, unless we tie down carefully who can sue, we could open the floodgates to various campaigning organisations that want to use the Bill as a vehicle to sue quasi-religious or quasi-public bodies.

Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. Friend and I clearly have similar thoughts on the matter. Will he be so good as to give me and the Committee the benefit of his reaction to the prospect of the proliferation of bodies such as the Consumers Association, the citizens advice bureaux, the Gas Consumers Council, or perhaps one of the more politically motivated law centres? One does not want to job back to Monday night in the House, but is my hon. Friend as frightened as I am about the possible proliferation of parties?

Mr. Leigh: These are probing amendments for the good reason that Conservative Members, coming from

where we do in the political firmament, should be concerned about organisations—particularly organisations such as Liberty, which I am not aware is a natural Conservative organisation—which are pressing such amendments. Liberty and similar organisations are hopping mad with the Government for restricting so narrowly the definition of who can sue. Such campaigning organisations, many on the left with their own agenda, wanted the right to pick up an individual and run with that individual's case. That is what concerns us.
The Government's notes on clauses are correct, and sum up the situation quite well. They state:
The ability to apply for judicial review on Convention grounds would thus be narrower than for judicial review applications otherwise, but would correspond to the standing or locus test under Article 34 of the Convention … for bringing complaints to the European Court of Human Rights.
Some of my hon. Friends may be suspicious of the European Court of Human Rights, but the jurisprudence on moral, social or ethical matters is conservative; it comes from the continental tradition of conservative jurisprudence. Therefore, it is wise to base the test of who can sue on that narrow jurisprudence, which has built up during the past 50 years.

Mr. Maclennan: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's conversion to things European. I want to be clear that his argument is that it is not conservative to prefer the British rules on standing to the European ones.

Mr. Leigh: Usually, I would prefer to adopt British jurisprudence, but I am worried by precisely the arguments raised by my hon. Friend the Member of Solihull this afternoon. If we start with a completely blank sheet of paper—if we say to our judges that they can start afresh—the many organisations that we know are out there waiting to sue pose an alarming prospect. That is why I want to limit the definition tightly.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will my hon. Friend help someone who is not a lawyer and not as well versed as him in such arguments? I seem to recall that, when the homosexual couple who were below the age of 21 took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, they did so with the backing of Stonewall. Although they were individuals who were aggrieved by the situation and who felt that their rights were infringed, they nevertheless took their action with the backing of a well-known interest group.
Therefore, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain to me, as I have not followed the matter as well as he has, why it is not the case, even under the Government's proposition, that any aggrieved individual can have their case backed—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) returns to the amendment, I should say that some interventions, not just that of the hon. Lady, have been far too long. There is no opportunity to make a speech during a speech.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point. We well know that, although individuals sue as victims, they are invariably backed by an organisation. My hon.


Friend's point is precisely that made by the Lord Chancellor in the other place. He said that one should not be too worried about the restriction, because, although a victim will sue as an individual, he could be backed by an organisation. Having said that, at least there is some restriction; the weapon is not simply being handed on a plate to organisations such as Liberty. At least such organisations have to find a victim. They cannot just raise wide general propositions and bring them to our courts. That is what concerns us.

Mr. Bercow: I follow the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. Is he therefore saying that only the aggrieved party—that is to say, for the purposes of the Bill, the victim—should be able to bring proceedings?

Mr. Leigh: That is precisely my position, and that is the Government's position. It grieves me to support the Government, but occasionally one has to do so in the interests of good law making. We should not be unduly party political about this point; we can have a perfectly civilised debate. If I have to support the Government, so be it.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) supported the learned tome by Lord Woolf.

Mr. Bercow: Well thumbed.

Mr. Leigh: Perhaps not by all of my hon. Friends.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the book the words:
has to receive a generous interpretation. It has to be a broad and flexible test".
It is precisely such words—"generous", "broad", "flexible"—that fill me with alarm. How far shall we extend matters if we adopt that wide definition of who can sue?
We know, because examples were given in the other place, of the organisations that are waiting to sue if an amendment such as this is passed—the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Equal Opportunities Commission and trade unions. Are my hon. Friends really sanguine about the prospect of such organisations—not victims; these are the precise organisations referred to in debates in the other place by people who were moving amendments such as this-being given carte blanche to sue anyone they like? I am certainly not sanguine.

Mr. Garnier: Would it assist my hon. Friend if we were to make it a requirement that someone who was not a direct victim within the context of clause 7(1), but who wanted to bring an action—an additional person, if I may describe him in that way—should seek the leave of the court before he was able to persist in those proceedings? My hon. Friend will appreciate that, for judicial review, one cannot appear before the divisional court without the leave of the court. Will my hon. Friend think about that suggestion, perhaps in the period before we reach Report?

Mr. Leigh: The Minister—on whose shoulders the matters rest rather more heavily than they rest on mine,

sadly—will have heard that intervention and can ponder it. The suggestion seems to be a perfectly fair one and is perhaps a reasonable compromise. I have not had sufficient notice of it to make up my mind whether it would solve the problem. It may well do so.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so soon after my previous intervention. He is arguing a rigorous case in favour of allowing only the victim to bring proceedings. However, as he is also an extraordinarily strong supporter of the family-in fact, a supporter without equal in the Committee-would he be prepared to concede that a family member might be considered to have a sufficient interest in a case to satisfy the sufficient interest criterion in amendment No. 50?

Mr. Leigh: Yes; that is a fair point. I see no reason why, if there is genuine outrage—which, in the context of this week, may not be a particularly good word to use; it is one of those rather good old-fashioned English words that seems to have been taken over in an unpleasant way—in such cases, a family member should not be allowed to sue. It is a fair point, which I accept.

Mr. Lansley: If not only victims, but organisations, were able to bring actions, does my hon. Friend agree that not only the organisations that he mentioned, but other organisations, could use convention rights-especially in pursuance of article 8, on the right to respect for private and family life-in the United Kingdom jurisdiction, perhaps to bring cases to protect family life?

Mr. Leigh: That may be. One must not fall into the trap—as I perhaps naturally tend to do, for which I apologise—of assuming that all the organisations that will be queueing up to sue under the provisions will be left-leaning ones. I accept that very conservative, pro-family organisations could do the same.
In moving similar amendments in the other place, Lord Lester said:
It will then become necessary for our courts to have regard not to our well tried and tested case law and the sufficient interest test, but to a complex body of Strasbourg case law developed for the quite different purpose of interpreting a provision of the convention".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1997; Vol. 1712, c. 825.]
Although he seemed to think that that view was mistaken, I think that he has put his finger on the point. It is wise for us to base our jurisprudence on the convention—which was the purport of amendments that I spoke to last week.
Lord Lester also said that he felt that the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Fair Employment Commission would not be able to move an action. The Minister may want to comment on that view. However, I would not be filled with particular alarm if those bodies could not themselves move an action, but had to rely on a victim to do so.
I should like to quote one case, which was referred to also in the other place, to illustrate the point. The case of Open Door and Dublin Well Women v. Ireland turned on the wish of the Irish courts, Irish Government and Irish people to preserve strong laws on abortion. The European Court of Human Rights considered that women of child-bearing age could claim to be victims as they


belonged to a class of women that might be adversely affected by the restrictions. So, in that case, the court drew fairly widely the class of those who might be able to sue.
Another interesting case concerned the then Harriet Harman—who is now the Secretary of State for Social Security—when she was working for a civil liberties organisation.

Mr. Garnier: She may still be Harriet Harman.

Mr. Leigh: Yes, but I cannot call her Harriet Harman in Committee. In that case, it was ruled that David Leigh, the journalist concerned, could complain, but that the newspaper companies could not. In that case, the European Court drew the definition quite narrowly.
The Lord Chancellor is not someone with whom I tend to agree on all cases. However, I thought that in his summing up of the debate in the other place, his words were wise. Moreover, we should observe his words with particular care, as he is the oracle for these purposes—although he cannot participate in our debate, this is primarily his Bill. He said:
The purpose of the Bill is to give greater effect in our domestic law to the convention rights. It is in keeping with this approach that persons should be able to rely on the convention rights before our domestic courts in precisely the same circumstances as they can rely upon them before the Strasbourg institutions. The wording of Clause 7 therefore reflects the terms of the convention".
Our debate today is not about whether we want to incorporate the convention. The Government and the House have decided that matter. However, surely we want to be rigorous in incorporating it. If we want to incorporate the convention, that is what we should seek to do. We should not try to create an entirely new class of potential victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) said, the Lord Chancellor confirmed that interest groups would still be able to provide assistance.
I was worried about one aspect of the Lord Chancellor's comments, and I should be grateful for the Minister' s comments on it. The Lord Chancellor said that he was
giving serious consideration to Sir Peter Middleton's proposal that there should be a separate fund for public interest cases, including those involving convention rights."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1997; Vol. 1712, c. 830-31.]
Why should public moneys be involved in supporting groups that may or may not have a grievance? Why should they be supported by public funds? Although I may have misunderstood the point, it is nevertheless important.
I hope that the Committee thinks that I have made an at least arguable case, which can I summarise by quoting Liberty. It stated:
Despite the suggestion in the earlier Labour Party consultation paper Bringing Rights Home that the rules of standing might be widened (or at least maintained as they are), the Government proposes to reduce the scope of standing to bring proceedings invoking the European Convention. We believe that there is no justification for such a retrograde step and that it is essential that statutory bodies such as the EOC, and NGOs, continue to be able to bring proceedings in the circumstances already established by the High Court. Such organisations can play a vital role in bringing matters of important public interest before the courts. The proposals would mean that an organisation such as the EOC would have standing to bring proceedings in which domestic and/or European Community law was invoked, but not if the Convention were invoked. That would be a nonsensical situation.

That was Liberty's view. I hope that my hon. Friends, having heard that view, will take precisely the opposite view. I hope that, like me, they believe that—although the Government have fallen down in their duty of restricting or defining very carefully what constitutes a public body in clause 6—in clause 7, the Government have taken the right and firm view that only a victim and not groups seeking self-publicity may sue. I do not know why Ministers have taken that view, although I suspect it was because they were worried about the number of cases that might come before the courts.

Mr. Lansley: Although I am not a lawyer, I support amendment No. 50, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), and amendment No. 42, which was spoken to so well by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
I have listened with interest to this debate—which, helpfully, has been accessible to non-lawyers—and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), have been persuaded of the merits of making this group of amendments. It might be helpful if I explain why. Unless my hon. and learned Friend tells me otherwise, I have construed them not as probing amendments, but as substantive ones that would improve the Bill. They have given us a helpful opportunity to discuss some important issues. I shall not delay the Committee long, as I know that others wish to hear the Minister's reply.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I start from the standpoint that we would not necessarily have sought to incorporate the European convention into British law. As the Bill does so, however, what should it comprise? It has always been a matter of balance between the risk that incorporation would lead to interference with and frustration of the intentions of Parliament, and hence the reduction of our customary form of parliamentary sovereignty, and, on the other hand, the potential benefit that it would strengthen the ability of individuals and non-governmental organisations to take action against arbitrary, unreasonable, procedurally unfair or disproportionate action by the state or public authorities. The Bill as drafted, which restricts the rights of action to victims alone, runs the risk of not striking the right balance, and therefore not exploiting to the full the benefit that may be derived from the incorporation of convention rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was generous enough to concede that, whatever our particular political views, hon. Members can envisage circumstances in which organisations that are not necessarily themselves the victim of an act might none the less seek to use the convention rights incorporated in the legislation to pursue action against what they regard as arbitrary or unreasonable acts by public authorities. However, my hon. Friend appeared to be arguing that confining the rights of action to victims will minimise the extent to which actions will be brought that frustrate the intentions of Parliament and give rise to convention-led, judge-made law rather than Parliament-laid law.
I do not agree. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was right to say that it is simply a question whether such cases will be brought in a more substantive way in the first instance, embracing
 

the range of public policy issues that arise, or whether there will a large number of cases relating to the narrow circumstances of individual victims.
I shall not re-run the discussion that I had with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, but it is clear that, if the legislation is confined to victims, there will be more and narrower cases, probably over exactly the same time scale. Organisations will use a range of cases in order to achieve the same effect, but they will do so in relation to particular victims. I find that an undesirable way of proceeding.
As the objective is to secure the compatibility of UK legislation with convention rights, it may be better to do so using particular instances but elaborating their public policy implications, rather than resting upon what may be a rather haphazard and arbitrary selection of cases relating to specific victims which may proceed through a series of intermediate stages, and the incompatibilities that are exposed may not cover all the implications and potential difficulties.
For those reasons, the legislation should go beyond the victims themselves. The amendments seem to work on two levels. My hon. and learned Friend's amendments incorporate what appear to be the Government's intentions. In another place, the Lord Chancellor seemed to suggest that it was the Government's belief that various organisations would assist victims of unlawful acts in bringing cases. The amendments seek only to make explicit that which the Government regard as implicit-that bodies should be able to act on behalf of and not simply assist victims.
I understand that there is a difference of substance before the courts, but if the Government's intention is not to frustrate bodies bringing cases in respect of victims of unlawful acts, why not allow them to act on behalf of a victim of an unlawful act, rather than simply assisting, as the Government seem to imply?
The amendments in the names of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and his right hon. and hon. Friends go further. They seek to extend the rights of action beyond victims to all those with sufficient interest. I shall not elaborate on the arguments, as they were well presented by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross raised a question to which the Government have to respond. Why are they sticking on this point? It is perfectly clear that they do not intend to strengthen the hand of public authorities and limit the circumstances in which incompatibilities between UK law and the European convention are exposed. That would be contrary to their intentions. Presumably they want convention rights incorporated into UK legislation. That is the purpose of the Bill. If public interest bodies that are not necessarily themselves victims of an unlawful act can demonstrate to a court that there is incompatibility, why should the Government seek to prevent that? If that is not the reason, what is it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough put his finger on it when he quoted the Lord Chancellor saying that the Government wanted to bring into UK legislation precisely the same circumstances as apply when a case is presented to the European Court of Human Rights. It

is perfectly clear from the debate that precisely the same circumstances will not do. There is a need not only to provide an opportunity for British courts to incorporate European convention rights, but to establish a margin of appreciation in respect of UK legislation. The British courts would be assisted in establishing that margin of appreciation by virtue of public interest actions being brought by bodies other than the victims.
In addition, there is a body of jurisprudence relating to sufficient interest that will make clearer and more helpfully available to courts a basis upon which to determine who ought to have rights of audience. No one would suggest allowing excessive or frivolous cases to be brought. All the normal and reasonable tests would apply, and a party would have to obtain the leave of the court in order to bring a sufficient interest case. Such a case would embrace not only all those who were victims of unlawful acts, but those who could assist the Government in their intentions, and secure clarification of where there might be incompatibilities.

Mr. John Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, after an initial significant increase in litigation, the incidence of litigation will decrease once the matters had settled down, and that judges will be considerably constrained in giving leave to take judicial review proceedings by precedent and the fact that there had been a greater body of litigation previously?

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In the first instance, there must of necessity be a number of cases that have not been brought because of the procedural difficulties involved in taking a case to the European court and the relative ease—nothing is easy in these terms—of bringing a case before the UK courts, so there is likely to be more litigation to start with. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the number of cases will settle down, but bearing in mind the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, it is likely that it will not settle at a low level. A good deal of litigation may follow.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that breaches of fundamental rights might be relatively rare. He may be right, but I do not think that it works like that. The cases brought will not go to the heart of the fundamental right asserted in the convention, but will work at the boundaries. The main issue will be not whether the right to freedom is to be transgressed fundamentally, but what the boundary of that right is in relation to public authorities. That is a shifting boundary, which will be subject to a lot of litigation.
The Government's proposal will result in more cases, because, to pursue the point of public policy, one has to keep finding the particular circumstances in which victims of unlawful acts can be used as a basis for securing a declaration of incompatibility. Beyond that, because some cases involving victims of unlawful acts will be rooted in particular circumstances rather than acting on the basis of a public interest group trying to secure a declaration of incompatibility on public policy grounds, we may find that the merits of the case become meshed with the extent to which incompatibility exists.
That may lead to a plethora of cases that argue two ways on public policy and may go different ways according to the public policy implications drawn from


cases decided on their merits, rather than public policy cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, there is a risk with the amendments that interference with the will of Parliament will go too far in the first instance, but we shall get to the heart of the Government's aim of securing more definitive judgments on incompatibility earlier rather than going through what may turn out to be a haphazard, lengthy and tortuous series of litigation to arrive at the same point.
On that basis, and having listened to the debate, I strongly support the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) spoke, in a good-natured leg pull, about the unexpected enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for certain European matters. My hon. Friend did not rise to that, which is typical of the dignity that he has brought to the debate, but I should like to comment on it in the same spirit. I am quite a high-mileage politician, and one of the few people to have been a directly elected Member of the European Parliament—I was elected in the first direct elections and served there between 1979 and 1984—and a delegate to the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is the forum that acts as the political custodian of the European convention on human rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I have misgivings about many things that emanate from the treaty of Rome, which is the root treaty of the European Union, and subsequent treaties, as well as the various institutions that attend those treaties—the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is dilating somewhat too far from the kernel of the matter that we are discussing.

Mr. Taylor: I had hoped that I might have some sympathy from you, Sir Alan, in attempting to distinguish between the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. I shall dwell no longer on the issue, save to say that those of us who are acquainted with the institutions know that they are as different as chalk and cheese.
I hope that you will find me in order, Sir Alan, if I speak about parties who can bring proceedings. I face a problem that I shall have to think hard about before Report stage. I share the great anxiety of other Conservative Members that the number of qualifying parties and participants may proliferate. There may be all kinds of opportunistic petitioning of the English courts by virtue of what will then be the Human Rights Act 1998.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough mentioned various potential candidate bodies that would love to become petitioners in the process. In an intervention, I suggested the Consumers Association, the Gas Consumers Council, citizens advice bureaux and law centres. We all know of the generic category that might be a multitude. The good intention behind the convention, and domesticating it into English law, might be soured

and wrecked by the size of the clamouring queue of those who want to bring their cases and causes. I want the most restrictive interpretation possible of who can petition.
On the other hand—this is an honest anomaly—there has been a recent development in English jurisprudence to de-restrict rights of audience. Parties other than barristers in higher courts, and barristers and solicitors in lower courts, have been enabled to have rights of audience. Patent practitioners and accountants can go before tax tribunals. Citizens advice bureaux are regular representers—and good ones—before our county courts for people with causes and grievances. The concept of the Mackenzie friend has also developed. There has been a domestic drift towards liberalising a person's right to have someone with them before a judicial process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who is a particular champion of the rights of the family, that, in an appropriate case, a family member might seek to represent an injured party before a court. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough agreed that that might be appropriate. Examples can be found further back in English law of people who lack legal capacity—by minority or through some unfortunate affliction—being represented by a parent, a guardian or a receiver in the court of protection. I hope that I am using the right term of art—I think I am—but in any case I trust that my meaning is clear: there is a culture of allowing people to be represented by others.
I am finding it difficult to reconcile the two strands. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends can help me with that at this early stage, or whether I will have to reflect on this between now and Report. For reasons that I have made clear to the point of labouring them, I do not want this process cluttered with all sorts of putative petitioners, representatives or persons who claim an interest. However, I am entirely sympathetic to the long and properly established culture that those who may be found to be at a disadvantage in the daunting circumstances of presenting a case in the court of law should be properly accompanied lest they be at a disadvantage for that single reason.
In the legal profession, various figures of speech have been used over time. For example, the term "parity of firepower" and similar terms are used to try to show that one party to the proceedings does not have an excessive advantage and the other is not excessively daunted. An attempt is made to find some equivalence, because, in that way, it has been thought that a fairer outcome is more likely.
I have developed other points courtesy of other right hon. and hon. Members who have been good enough to allow me to intervene on them. I am glad to have had an opportunity to do so, and I am glad to have been able to develop these further remarks. I end as I began.
There is here discerned a problem that needs to be addressed. There must be some sort of reconciliation between the proper desire to stop this process being swamped and the proper desire to ensure that disadvantaged members of society—disadvantaged in some sense of the word—should have assistance and representation properly to make their case. That reconciliation is not clear to me now, but I shall be thinking about it carefully. If the Minister would care to mention that aspect in his reply, I should be grateful to him.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I accept the good offices of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) who said that his amendments seek to enhance and clarify the Bill. I also accept the good offices of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who has also supported the Bill during its passage through the House. He has sought to enhance the Bill in ways that the Government have not sought, but his intention has been to make it more effective. The Government's view is that his proposals may not have made the Bill more effective, but there is a genuine wish to get this one right.
The six amendments are concerned with who can bring proceedings under clause 7. Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 141, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, focus specifically on judicial review proceedings. They would enable a person to bring proceedings under the Bill against a public authority on application for judicial review if the court considered that he had a sufficient interest—that is, they would enable persons who are not the victim or potential victim of an unlawful act to bring cases under the Bill. The most obvious effect of the amendments would be to open the way for interest groups to bring proceedings on application for judicial review.
The issue was debated at great length in another place, and has been discussed at great length today. I understand the reasons for tabling the amendments, but the concerns about the implications of applying the victim test are misplaced. The approach taken in clause 7 is the best way to bring rights home.
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect in our domestic law to the convention rights. It is in keeping with that approach that people should be able to rely on those rights before our courts in the same circumstances as they can rely on them before the Strasbourg institutions. Clause 7 accordingly seeks to mirror the approach taken by Strasbourg—reliance on the convention rights is restricted to victims or potential victims of unlawful acts, and the definition of a victim for this purpose is tied to article 34 of the convention as amended by the 1 1 th protocol. I will expand on that further in a moment.
Our approach seems to be wholly justifiable. I acknowledge that, as a consequence, a narrower test will be applied for bringing applications by judicial review on convention grounds than in applications for judicial review on other grounds. However, interest groups will still be able to provide assistance to victims who bring cases under the Bill, including the filing of amicus briefs. Interest groups will also be able to bring cases directly where they are victims of an unlawful act.
I do not believe that the different tests for convention and non-convention cases will cause undue difficulty for the courts, or prevent interest groups from helping individuals who are victims of unlawful acts.
Amendments Nos. 50, 52 and 53, tabled by the Opposition, seemto have a somewhat similar intention, which is to expand the number of possible litigants. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough seems to have had his arguments challenged effectively by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was sometimes

helpful and sometimes not so helpful. He made very good points. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) also made some very able points. I shall give the official line.
First, the amendments expand the category of people who can bring cases under all types of proceedings in clause 7, not only those on application for judicial review. Secondly, they do not adopt the existing "sufficient interest" test, but seem to introduce a new requirement that a person wishing to bring proceedings would have to meet, which is that he is acting
on behalf of a victim or potential victim of an unlawful act.
The amendments accordingly require that there must be a victim of an alleged unlawful act. They may be seen as a compromise between the Strasbourg test and the sufficient interest test—seeking to exclude the possibility of academic challenges while still allowing interest groups to bring cases themselves when they are not the victim of the act being challenged. If a group is genuinely acting on behalf of a person, the proceedings can perfectly well be brought in that person's name. As I have said, the Bill does not prevent interest groups from providing assistance to a victim once a case is brought.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough referred to Sir Peter Middleton's proposal. On the question of individuals having access to the courts, the Lord Chancellor's Department issued a paper in March on the first stage of our proposals for reviewing legal aid. We intend to develop a way of supporting certain cases that have significant wider public interest, but which might otherwise not be brought. One definition of public interest that we have in mind includes cases involving challenges to the acts or omissions of public bodies, including breaches of convention rights.

Mr. William Cash: The Minister is touching on a subject that I have raised many times. I have suggested that, if one is trying to find out what sort of cases should qualify for public funds of that kind, there is a strong case for applying to a judge for a certificate of public interest in order to ensure that the parameters are properly identified and we know what is and is not important. Is that something which the Minister is contemplating?

Mr. O'Brien: It would be wrong at this stage for me to prejudge the outcome of an on-going consultation. The hon. Gentleman's views on these matters are well known; he has expressed them before. No doubt, in due course, the Lord Chancellor's Department will be able to take account of them. There are certainly some concerns about the way in which legal aid has been granted in some cases. We need to ensure that we get this right, and there is still quite a long way to go before we do.
It is important to give examples in connection with the victim requirement, and I will consider some in due course. By virtue of clause 2, our courts must take account of any relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence, whether more expansive or not. They will decide how best to use that in the circumstances of the case before them.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough suggested that the reference to the convention rights in clause 1 is inadequate because it does not refer to the relevant article on victims—article 34. In fact, we pick up


that article, as I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in clause 7(6), which defines a victim for the purposes of that clause.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that reference to clause 7(6) and article 34 is not helpful. I do not understand why. It is clear that we are appropriating the text of article 34 and the jurisprudence that goes with it. The intention is that a victim under the Bill should be in the same position as a victim in Strasbourg. A local authority cannot be a victim under clause 7, because it cannot be a victim in Strasbourg under current Strasbourg jurisprudence.
6 pm
On the definition, the convention provides:
The Commission may receive petitions … from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention".
Applying the victim requirement, the basic approach of the Commission and the Court has been to require that the applicant must claim to be directly affected in some way by the matter complained of. In some cases, they have interpreted fairly flexibly the requirement for the applicant to be directly affected, although the jurisprudence on the issue is not always entirely consistent. The victim requirement was, for example, applied restrictively in a series of sado-masochist cases, in which the Commission considered that applications from persons claiming to indulge in certain acts that were prohibited by law did not satisfy the victim test, because, at that stage, there had been no interference by the police or prosecuting authorities in what they were doing.
There are other examples of a more expansive approach and it is important to put some before the House—indeed, the hon. Member for Gainsborough has already cited some. Individuals can sometimes complain of a particular practice in the absence of a measure of implementation if they run the risk of being directly affected by it. For example, children attending a school where corporal punishment was practised have been treated by the Commission as having a direct and immediate personal interest in complaining about such a punishment, even though they had not been punished. That was in the case of Campbell and Cosans v. UK in 1982.
The Court and Commission have shown a readiness to accept that the category of persons affected by a particular measure—and accordingly the number of potential victims—may be broad. The hon. Member for Gainsborough has referred to the case of Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland in 1992, in which the Irish Supreme Court had granted an injunction preventing the provision of information regarding abortion facilities outside Ireland. The Commission and Court considered that women of child-bearing age could claim to be victims of the injunction, as they belonged to a class of women that might have been adversely affected by the restriction.
Applications have been allowed not only by the person immediately affected—sometimes referred to as the direct victim—but by indirect victims. Where there has been an alleged violation of the right to life and the direct victim is dead, for example, close relatives of the deceased can be treated as victims on the basis that they were indirectly affected by the alleged violation.
A number of hon. Members have referred to family members. Obviously, they can be victims in appropriate circumstances. For example, a decision to deport someone might allow the family of the person to claim to be a victim of a violation of article 8—the right to respect for family life. The hon. Member for Solihull also sought confirmation that guardians ad litem and so forth would still have the right to behave as they would in the normal course of events in legal proceedings. I can confirm that we have no intention of restricting guardians ad litem or others who could normally undertake cases from doing so.
Likewise, a case can be brought on behalf of a dead victim by his or her family or relatives. The best known case, of which we have all heard, is the "Death on the Rock" case, brought on behalf of a dead IRA terrorist shot in Gibraltar. That is the sort of area that we are considering. A person may be able to claim that he or she is directly affected as a consequence of a violation of the rights of someone else. Where complaints are brought by persons threatened by deportation, that may arise.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about allowing interest groups to assist the court. The difficulty is that the question arises: if such groups are to have that right, how many of them will claim that they want to participate in a court proceeding? Under the provisions of the human rights convention, many groups may feel that they have an interest in a particular issue and wish to assist the court. We are talking not only of Liberty, as there are a large number of different groups.
For example, the right to life could produce a series of litigation cases, which might involve many interest groups that might want to assist the court. Interest groups, such as professional associations and NGOs, can bring an application in Strasbourg only if they can demonstrate that they themselves are victims of a breach—that is, that they are in some way affected by the measure complained of. It is not enough that the actual victim, whether a member of the organisation or not, consents to them acting on his behalf.
In B v. the UK, both Mrs. B and the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child brought an application complaining of the way in which the law affected electoral expenses. The Commission ruled the application by SPUC inadmissible because it was not directly affected by the law—only Mrs. B had been prosecuted. On the other hand, in Council of Civil Service Unions v. the UK, the Commission accepted that the CCSU was itself a victim of the GCHQ ban and could therefore bring an application, although it was rejected on different grounds. An NGO may represent its members in certain contexts and, in that case, it needs to identify them and produce the evidence of authority. In such circumstances, the NGO does not, however, thereby become a party itself.
Our courts will develop their own jurisprudence on the issue, taking account of Strasbourg cases and the Strasbourg jurisprudence. As a Government, our aim is to grant access to victims. It is not to create opportunities to allow interest groups from SPUC to Liberty—in which I must declare an interest because I am a member—to venture into frolics of their own in the courts. The aim is to confer access to rights, not to license interest groups to clog up the courts with test cases, which will delay victims' access to the courts. There is nothing


undemocratic about conferring rights on victims, rather than interest groups that are non-victims. Interest groups can always support victims, and that is enough.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that he was not persuaded about what he called the volumetric increase in litigation. He said that he did not believe that, after an initial period, we needed to worry about it in the long term. The Government must be cautious and concerned about that sort of thing. They must be wary to ensure that they protect the access of victims to the courts.

Mr. Maclennan: Is not the protection against what the hon. Gentleman called frolicsome interventions by interest groups the discretionary power of the court itself in judicial review cases simply to deem that there is not a sufficient interest, and to judge that matter in a way that would enable the court to decide whether it would be advancing the causes of justice to allow particular groups to be there?

Mr. O'Brien: We do not want to create a situation in which the court has to decide what is in the broad public interest in every case. We would rather ensure that, as a House, we had accepted our responsibility to give the court clear laws by which it can guide its decisions. That means stating the basis on which we wish cases to be brought, which is that there is a real victim with real problems, which must be resolved by a court. The court must be given clear guidance.

Mr. Cash: That brings me back to the point I made earlier. The more that this argument develops, the more I feel that there is a serious case for a separate procedure whereby, before a case is brought, a person can go a judge and say, "This is the case." If the judge adjudicates that the case is a matter of public interest, the case will go ahead, which will avoid an enormous amount of wrangling afterwards about whether the court should have dealt with the case on a discretionary basis.

Mr. O'Brien: The danger of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that he seems to be suggesting the creation of a further step in the procedure beyond the ordinary leave provisions of the divisional court in judicial review cases—it is almost as though, to secure legal aid, the case would have to be approved by the judge. Obtaining legal aid can already take a long time—in civil cases, at least—but the hon. Gentleman seems to want to erect another hurdle, which would delay the whole process and clog up our legal system. However, whether there should be some public interest before legal aid is granted is a legitimate matter for debate, on which the House may want to take a view in due course.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough continues to surprise. During consideration of the Crime and Disorder Bill, he virtually became the advocate for Liberty, so I was surprised to hear him criticise it for pursuing cases. I was also surprised to hear him support the Government and oppose the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to expand access. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we should as far as possible pursue the Bill—which, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, is an important constitutional measure—on a non-partisan and sensible basis.
Arising from what has been said about victims, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned the human rights commission. He was concerned that his point might be out of order, but I think that it was very much in order—although, of course, that is a matter for you, Sir Alan—on the basis that we are talking about who has access to the courts, and whether we should create a mechanism to ensure that those who are victims have some means of access to the courts, or whether an organisation should decide to bring a matter before the courts even though it is not itself a victim.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have considered the issue of a human rights commission very carefully and consulted various organisations about it. It became clear that there was no consensus on the issue, and that, if we decided to establish such a commission through the Bill, we would end up not with a discussion of how to secure access to rights at Strasbourg but with a big debate and campaign about a commission and its terms of reference.
The Government do not have a closed mind on a commission—we have made our position clear. Different interest groups—the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and so on—have different views on whether a human rights commission would be a good thing, so the best we can do at the moment is to ensure that the convention is accepted as part of our law. After that, the need for a human rights commission may be the subject of a future debate—we shall have to see how that develops.
I believe that we have framed the Bill in a way that provides individuals with effective protection of the rights under the convention. As I have explained today and on previous occasions, the Government consider that the wording of clause 7 is wholly consistent with our overall approach. In the light of those comments, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will withdraw his amendment, and that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will not press his amendments.

Mr. Garnier: I think that we would all agree that we have had a very good debate, and I am most grateful to all those who have informed our deliberations with their interventions and speeches.
The Opposition have not spoken with one voice, and I think that the debate has been the better for that. It is also fair to say that Labour Members have not been here at all—with the exception of those who have had to be here. I pay tribute and extend my sympathy to the Minister—I am sure that he has better and more interesting things to do. The Whip, of course, is here, although the Whips change from time to time as they go off to the Tea Room. I congratulate the hard-working, silent Parliamentary Private Secretary—a position that I held not in the Home Office, but in other Departments-on his patience and forbearance, as I appreciate that it is not always a dream come true to sit through the long hours of the proceedings acting as a messenger and encourager of one's political master.
I am happy to say that, at least on this occasion, the Liberal Democrats have come up as a real Opposition party—except on one matter—and have not fed out of the Government's hand. I do not want to lose the support of


the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and his hon. Friends by making that remark, as my opening speech was, as I candidly admitted at the outset, very much based on the speech of Lord Lester, who is a Liberal Democrat. My noble Friend Lord Kingsland was happy to support him, and I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has been happy to support much of what I said. I do not imagine that he has been persuaded by the Minister's explanation of why the Labour party has—as I think the right hon. Gentleman would say—reneged on its promise to establish a human rights commission or commissioner. I believe that the two parties struck a deal on that before the election, but that is a matter for them to sort out.
My hon. Friends the Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made speeches, and my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for Stone (Mr. Cash) made useful interventions, which assisted us in our debate, as did the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).
The speech to which most attention has been paid, both by my hon. Friends and by the Minister, was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)— I am delighted that he was able to take part in our proceedings, although I understand that he had to leave at 6.30 pm to attend a meeting that was arranged a long time ago. He supported the Government by praising the clarity of clause 7, at least in comparison with the lack of clarity of clause 6, which deals with those who can be sued, rather than those who, under clause 7, can sue. He was worried that the amendment would allow pressure groups to flood the courts with cases that had been generated to advance their own agendas rather than the case and the interests of the individual victim.
I say, with regret and with the greatest respect, that I am not entirely persuaded by my hon. Friend's arguments, although I know that he has thought deeply about the issue, not least as a passionate supporter of the Roman Catholic Church and, indeed, all the religious bodies that have expressed concern about the right to sue public authorities and Church bodies in the courts.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made a typically neat and elegant speech, dealing with interventions in a thoroughly admirable way. He rather diffidently said that he was not a lawyer. We all know that, and it has done him no harm. He added that the debate had been made accessible to non-lawyers. Of course, the doors of the Chamber are ever open, but this has not been what one might call an all-ticket occasion. I appreciate my hon. Friend's assistance, and I know that his well-made points will have been listened to carefully not only by me, because they supported my points, but by the Minister whose reply, if I may say so without embarrassing him, dealt thoroughly and courteously with the many points raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull described himself as a high-mileage politician. I have to stop myself from adding, "One lady owner, " because I do not wish him to be thought of as a motor car. He certainly motored through the debate with consummate ease, sometimes with his foot stuck to the accelerator. He gave us the benefit of his views from a background as a former elected Member of the European Parliament and a member of the Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Although he is always self-deprecating, he is a lawyer of considerable experience. I always listen to him with great interest on matters of this sort.
My hon. Friend expressed misgivings about the treaty of Rome and its institutions, but he made it clear that there was a real distinction between that treaty and its institutions and the European convention and its institutions. He was also worried about the enthusiasm for actions that would be demonstrated by pressure groups. His thoughtful contribution kept us all on our toes.
I have already alluded to the Minister's response, in which he referred to the Government's victim test, saying that the arguments against it were misplaced. He disappointed me when he began, because I thought that he would simply repeat what the Lord Chancellor said in the other place, which would have been unworthy of him. I am happy to say that his reputation was restored to its usual level when he went on to deal at length, and with courtesy and a genuine willingness to assist, with the points made by those who disagree with him.
I regret to say that I am not in the least bit persuaded that the arguments that my hon. Friends and I advanced have been overcome. As the Minister rightly said, were tabled to improve the Bill, not to destroy it, even though many Opposition Members had trouble in supporting the convention's incorporation into domestic law. There are exceptions to that among the Opposition. I have no huge religious or principled objection to incorporation; it is the practicalities of the Bill which need to be attended to.
In view of the hour, I shall not press our amendments to a Division. I know that that will disappoint you, Mr. Martin, because it will give you no chance to use your voice to call a Division. I dare say that you can overcome that disappointment, and I intend no disrespect, of course, in making that remark. I shall, however, invite the Minister to consider the thoughts raised by the debate when they appear in the Official Report so that, if the matter is raised again on Report, the Government will be able to advance better arguments to persuade us that our points about denial of access to the English courts are wrong. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, and shall, at the appropriate time, invite the Committee to permit me to withdraw it.

Mr. Maclennan: I join the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) in expressing my appreciation of all the hon. Members who participated in a debate which has been valuable, not least in eliciting from the Minister a fuller attempted explanation of the Government's position than was vouchsafed to the other place when the issue of access to the courts was discussed there. I hope to divide the Committee on that issue, because I am virtually certain that this is our last opportunity to consider the matter in this Session.
On the substance of the Minister's reply, I remain unpersuaded, for two reasons, that the Government have reached the right conclusion. First, by multiplying the criteria and not simply applying the same criteria as are used in judicial review cases, they have made more difficult the task of the courts in determining whether access should be available. It seems curious that the courts should be required to approach matters that might be cognate in substance, but different in procedural ways. That is the first reason why I believe that the Government have made an error of judgment.


The second reason takes us into a much more speculative realm. What will the consequences be in terms of the number of cases brought, and the ease with which they can be disposed of? My view is that the Government take an unduly pessimistic view of the prospects. Although they couch that view in terms of prudence, it is not prudent to proceed in that way because individual actions may proliferate if there is less certainty than there might have been had test cases been taken by bodies with a substantial interest, which could put a matter to rest.
I speak with no huge authority on the subject, but my impression is that, in the United States, where some comparable rights are protected by the Bill of Rights under the United States constitution, there is not an enormous body of litigation proceeding through the courts. Perhaps that is because there is a fairly established jurisprudence. One thinks of the effect of a case like the Sullivan case in determining the balance between interests in disclosure, freedom of expression and other issues. Such a case can put the argument to rest for a very long time. That is what one would hope would happen in the United Kingdom, and what one would expect if suitable cases were decided. However, the Minister has candidly expressed the basis of the Government's thinking, for which 1 am grateful.
I am also grateful for the Minister's remarks about the putative role of a commissioner—an issue which is closely allied to the question of access to the courts. I am glad that he said that the Government's mind is not closed. I regret that it is not possible to proceed in the Bill because the money resolution does not cover the possibility of paying for such a commission, so debate exclusively on that subject would not be in order.
I also welcome the thought that the Government may be ready to proceed at an early date, once the territorial differences of opinion between the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations that feel that their turf is being trespassed on are sorted out. The wider public interest is in ensuring that the Bill works and that its objectives, which they all broadly support, are facilitated. I do not criticise those bodies.
We had rapid movement from the Government in bringing the Bill forward as an early measure in this Parliament. Perhaps it was too much to hope for a unified response on the issue to which the Minister alluded. However, it is of sufficient importance to merit an expression of the House's opinion in a vote.

Mr. Garnier: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: At the appropriate time, I shall invite the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) to move his amendment formally.

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 4, line 42, at end insert—

`(1A) Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) above may be brought without the leave of the court within three months of the commission of the unlawful act and otherwise may be brought only with the leave of the court'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 125.
No. 139, in page 5, line 9, at end insert—
'(4A) Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before end of—

(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or
(b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances, including the time by which the complainant knew or ought reasonably to have known of the substance of the complaint and the time by which he was reasonably able to bring the proceedings,

but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.
(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A)—

(a) any act extending over a period shall be treated as done at the end of that period; and
(b) a deliberate omission shall be treated as done at the end of that period.'.

Mr. Garnier: These amendments can be taken more quickly than the previous group. They all effectively propose a period of limitation for bringing the proceedings envisaged in clause 7(1)(a). Our amendment No. 51 adds a new subsection (1A):
Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) above may be brought without the leave of the court within three months of the commission of the unlawful act and otherwise may be brought only with the leave of the court.
The Government and Liberal Democrat amendments will be explained by the Minister and by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) respectively. Both provide a regime for time limiting the bringing of proceedings in various ways. While we differ on the precise regime that should govern the limitation period and where the court should intervene, all three parties fully accept that there should be some time limitation.
The requirement for leave to bring proceedings in our courts is not new, nor is it new in the Scottish legal system. No doubt the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross can tell us more about that. It is found in both the criminal and civil jurisdictions. We had long a discussion about judicial review or its equivalent earlier. It is often required when appeals are being considered. The Committee will know that certain criminal proceedings cannot be taken without the leave of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Certain appeals in criminal cases need the leave, I believe, of either the judge who tried the case or of the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: indicated assent.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) encourages me.
It is equally well known that the courts discourage civil appeals, such as interlocutory appeals from judges of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. To get before the


House of Lords—that is, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords—one needs the leave of either the court of appeal from which one is appealing or of the House of Lords Judicial Committee itself.
The provenance of these amendments is not unknown or wholly outside the system of justice that we have developed over many years. With all due modesty, I invite the Committee to accept that our amendment is to be preferred. One needs only to consider the English of the other amendments to see why. Amendment No. 51 is short and to the point. It says precisely what it means, and provides the courts and potential defendants or respondents to applications under the Bill with sufficient protection. We suggest that proceedings can be brought within three months of the commission of the unlawful act without leave, but otherwise may be brought only with the leave of the court.
Government amendment No. 125 extends the limitation period to a year but allows proceedings to be brought after a longer period, which is effectively prescribed by the court or tribunal as
equitable having regard to all the circumstances".
While it is designed to achieve broadly the same purposes, it lacks the clarity of our amendment. In the absence of such clarity, it provides the courts with a far greater problem. The lack of definition in, for example, paragraph (b) of amendment No. 125 makes it a hugely vague and rather wide provision.
I hope that I will be forgiven by both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for anticipating points that they may not make. The Liberal Democrat amendment No. 139 strikes me as unnecessarily wordy, and, in consequence, it achieves nothing. They are at one with the Government in wanting proceedings under subsection (1)(a) to be brought before the end of one year or within
such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances".
However, it continues:
including the time by which the complainant knew or ought reasonably to have known of the substance of the complaint and the time by which he was reasonably able to bring the proceedings, but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.
I understand where the Liberal Democrats got that wording. I think that it comes from the modern rules on the limitation period under the amendment to the Limitation Act 1980. It is not necessary to have all that in there. Going back to our amendment No. 51, I suggest that a court is perfectly capable of doing such thinking for itself.
I have no doubt that an applicant to bring late proceedings would wish to address the court on those matters anyway, and would not be shut out by the court from doing so. I suggest that there is nothing to be gained by those additional words in the Liberal Democrat amendment. Therefore, I believe that I can safely invite the Committee to support amendment No. 51, in preference to Government amendment No. 125 and the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 139.

Mr. Maclennan: I should not wish to suggest that amendment No. 139, standing in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the

Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), is anything more than a compromise. It is by no means the ideal approach to the question of the time limit.
Our simple view is that the Government proposal to introduce a one-year time limit for proceedings under clause 7, with a discretion to extend that period where a court or tribunal considers it equitable to do so, is not required. It is not required in comparable legislation in New Zealand, or in Canada, where a charter of rights and freedoms operates. Those jurisdictions rely, as should we, on the ordinary limitations applicable to civil proceedings.
The adoption of a human rights time limit will cause confusion and uncertainty. It will be especially confusing if the action involves another element, such as trespass, or what is essentially a Government tort claim, where the period will be three years if the case involves negligence or personal injuries, and six years for other torts such as trespass to property with a breach of privacy added on. Those points have been put to the Home Secretary by my noble and learned Friend Lord Lester, so the Government have had notice of our general view on this matter.
An alleged victim of a convention breach who delays for more than a year in bringing a claim under this legislation will not know whether he or she is able to proceed until he or she has persuaded a court or tribunal to exercise its discretion. It is difficult to judge which circumstances will result in a favourable exercise of that discretion, as the current wording of the exception in the Bill lacks such specifics.
The point is of greater importance in the context of the debate we have just had, where there is a narrow victim test, and in the absence of a human rights commissioner to assist complainants in formulating claims. Our concern is that people with potentially meritorious claims might be unaware that their rights have been infringed, especially if they have had limited access to legal services and have little knowledge about the impact of the legislation. A year time limit is a hurdle that might well put complainants off, or lead to meritorious cases not being brought.
Our amendment is a compromise, and I admit that I am not entirely happy with it as anything more than that. The Government would do best simply to let the normal rules on limitations apply to actions under the legislation.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The amendments relate to the time within which proceedings against public authorities under the Bill are to be brought. To some extent, this is a matter of judgment, and the judgment of various parties in the Committee appears to differ. At present, the Bill makes no provision about limitation periods in which proceedings under clause 7(1)(a)—that is, proceedings brought on convention grounds alone and not under any pre-existing cause of action—have to be brought. We think, as do those who are moving the other amendments on the subject, that such proceedings should be no different from other civil proceedings in having a limitation period. What we differ on is how long the period should be and whether guidance should be given to the courts about when they should extend that period.
Before I discuss these points, I should, for the avoidance of any doubt, make the point that our amendment relates only to proceedings under clause 7(1)(a). If a plaintiff proceeded under clause 7(1)(b)—that is to say, he brought proceedings under an existing cause


of action, and relied on his convention rights as an additional argument in support of his case—the limitation period would be the one that applies in the normal way to the existing cause of action.
The Government amendment provides that proceedings under clause 7(1)(a) must be brought within one year, beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place, or within such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable, having regard to all the circumstances. However, that time limit is subject to any stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question. The most obvious such case is judicial review. Assuming that the new rules of court that will be needed for the Bill provide that a procedure analogous to judicial review may be used for cases under clause 7(1)(a), it is reasonable that the time limit for that procedure—which is three months—should continue to apply. It would not be right for applicants who choose to bring their claims by way of judicial review to benefit from the longer 12-month period proposed for claims under the Bill.
6.45 pm
As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) suggested, there is at present a range of limitation periods in our law. For judicial review proceedings, an application for leave must be made promptly, and in any event within three months; for cases of personal injury caused by negligence, it is three years; and for most other actions in tort, it is six years. There is no off-the-shelf answer to the question how long the limitation period for claims under clause 7(1)(a) should be. What we have tried to do in our amendment is to strike a balance between the legitimate needs of the plaintiff and the legitimate needs of the defendant, which is what all limitation periods should do.

Mr. Grieve: I would expect that the majority of proceedings brought simply for a breach, and not tacked on to anything else, are likely to be by judicial review. Given that, is not the effect of the clause as drafted by the Government somewhat misleading? It suggests a one-year limitation period, whereas in practice, only a three-month period will apply in the vast majority of cases.

Mr. O'Brien: I do not think that it is misleading, because I have just made the position clear; in addition, any court that has to interpret the legislation will understand the position and will be able to use Pepper v. Hart in the normal way in order to deal with the issues. We want what we propose to do to be clear on the face of the Bill, and I think that it is clear. I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that the way in which we have done this is misleading.
Proceedings under clause 7(1)(a) will always be against a public authority, alleging that it has acted in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. Not all the public authorities concerned will be government authorities in the narrow sense. Judicial review has a short limitation period and, in our view, it is quite proper for there to be a fairly short period for proceedings under the legislation. The authority and those who are affected by its decisions are entitled to expect that proceedings of a novel character, if they are to be brought at all, will be brought promptly.
Bearing those considerations in mind, we think that a one-year period is appropriate. Having a three-month period, as proposed by amendment No. 51, would be unduly strict. Equally, we think that, in the majority of cases, it is reasonable to expect challenges solely on convention grounds to be brought within 12 months. A longer limitation period would skew the balance too much against public authorities. We want to ensure that public authorities are made subject to the legislation, but we want to do that in a fair and balanced way, remembering that public authorities are often acting in the interests of the taxpayer and the citizen, so it is right that fairness should apply to them as well.
I am aware that some people consider that the 12-month time limit is too short, although there are no amendments before the Committee which would provide for a much longer basic period. It has been suggested that the ordinary limitations for civil proceedings should apply, as they do, for example, in New Zealand. If I might take the New Zealand example first, the legislation in that country has no precise equivalent to clause 7(1)(a). As the Committee will be aware, clause 7(1)(a) creates a cause of action, and the Bill would be open to criticism if it did not clearly state what limitation period was to apply to proceedings under that paragraph.
As I have said, we believe that the right balance is provided by a 12-month period, with a power to extend it for the benefit of the complainant.
Suggestions for a two or three-year period fail to take account of the existing three-month period for judicial review, to which many claims under clause 7(1)(a) will be similar.
We recognise, however, that there may be circumstances in which a rigid one-year cut off could lead to injustice. Our amendment therefore does not therefore seek to provide a rigid limit, but enables a court to extend the period where it is appropriate to do so. There will be cases in which an individual has a good reason for delay. In judicial review cases, for example, the courts have extended time where the applicant has been seeking redress by other proper means, such as by pursuing internal grievance procedures, or where he has had to apply for legal aid. I have no doubt that the courts will continue to exercise their discretion so as to prevent prejudice to one party or the other where an application is made to extend time.
The Government amendment provides that the limitation period is to be one year
or such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances".
We have said no more than that, because I think that to expand on those circumstances might be likely to prove unhelpful to the court. We do not wish to narrow the range of circumstances which might influence the court.
It would be impossible to provide an exhaustive list of circumstances. We could provide a long list, and then find that, in the first case that came to court, there was a special factor which had not been included in the list. There is also a risk—this is the difficulty with amendment No. 139—in specifying some only of the circumstances which the court might be expected to take into consideration, even if they seem to be the most obvious ones and the ones which might be expected to arise most often.
Amendment No. 139 would put into the Bill just two factors which the court should consider—the time when the complainant knew or ought reasonably to have known


of the substance of the complaint and the time by which he was reasonably able to bring proceedings. I agree that these factors may well be taken into account by the court. Specifying these considerations would inevitably imply that more weight should be given to them than to other considerations which do not appear in the list. That might be a reasonable approach for a provision which deals with very specific causes of action, such as personal injury claims, but it is more problematic when we are dealing with the wide range of proceedings possible under clause 7(1)(a).
Similarly, to include some factors may trigger the question why some other quite different sort of circumstance has been omitted. If a factor that is likely to favour one party is included, it may be asked why it should not be balanced by a factor likely to favour the other party. The inclusion of some factors is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
It may be helpful if I draw attention to the limitation provisions in another area. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has a number of limitation periods—all less than a year—but, as with Government amendment No. 125, a court or tribunal can consider an application out of time
if, in all the circumstances of the case, it considers that it is just and equitable to do so.
No further guidance is given in the Act, but a body of law has been built up when it is appropriate to exercise the discretion. We have no doubt that the same would happen under the Bill.
The other part of amendment No. 139 would add special provision to deal with cases where the act or omission complained of took place not on a single date, from which the limitation period would run, but over a period. The concept of an act which extends over several days, or longer, is not new, and the courts will be able to deal with such cases in an appropriate manner without special provision being made for them.
In tort, a fresh cause of action accrues every day on which the continuing tort occurs. In judicial review, time starts to run when the grounds for the application first arise. The fact that an unlawful act is a continuing one may, but does not always, enable an applicant to obtain leave out of time. The proposed amendment would deny the courts the chance to be flexible and to do what is fair in each case.
As for omissions, the Bill already provides, in clause 6, that an act includes a failure to act. That goes wider than deliberate failures: an unintentional failure to act by a public authority is to be open to challenge under the Bill in the same way as any other failure to act, if that failure is incompatible with convention rights. Also, there is no need to state that a "deliberate omission" shall be treated as being
done at the end of that period.
As with on-going acts, our courts are familiar with the concept of on-going omissions, and are able to deal with them in the appropriate way.
I have spoken at some length to explain why we have opted for the approach that we have set out in amendment No. 125. We believe that our amendment provides the appropriate limitation period, and that it would be unwise to go into detail about when the period may be extended. I think that it is a matter of judgment, and I respect the fact that hon. Members may have a different judgment. I

am not sure that the wording of their amendments is right but there is room for a debate about how long the period should be. We have formed a judgment that is somewhat different from those formed by others in the Chamber. Obviously we have done that after due consideration. We think that it is the right period.
In the light of our explanation, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will feel able not to press their amendments.

Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the Minister for having set out with such clarity the Government's thinking on this matter. The question that I asked him in the course of what he had to say was designed not to be hostile but to explore some of the issues.
There are undoubtedly different and, to my mind, perfectly legitimate ways of approaching the issue. That of the Opposition, as set out in amendment No. 51, is designed to bring the matter in line with judicial review and then allow the usual exceptions which would be considered on any judicial review application to apply if the application were out of time. It is well enough known that many applications in judicial review are made out of time and accepted out of time.
The one matter that concerns me slightly—I shall be grateful to hear the Minister's view on it—is that it seems that one perhaps unintended consequence of the way in which the Government have seen fit to put in a limitation period is that we may well start seeing new and creative ways of trying to litigate the question of a human rights breach because the three-month period has expired before the complainant goes to his solicitor to complain. I shall widen that a little, so that the Minister understands what I am saying.
It seems that, if we have a three-month period, which is the same as that for judicial review, it will normally be incumbent upon the litigant to go within that period. However, as often happens, there will be occasions when the three-month period cannot be met. An application will be made to the court, explaining and stating the reasons, and the court will exercise its discretion.
I am bound to say that, with the one-year limitation period being inserted, which is really incompatible with the judicial review period of three months, I anticipate that there may be a slight inclination, if a solicitor is approached after five months by a potential litigant seeking redress, to say, "You are outside the time for judicial review, although we could apply and ask for that time to be waived, but should we be looking for some other mechanism by which we should be seeking redress?" Is it not the case that, if someone is to launch proceedings, he or she will want some certainty? No one would want the first set to be knocked out of touch, which would mean trying to initiate a second set of parallel proceedings in another form.
I shall be grateful to hear the Minister's comments, because it seems that there is a potential problem. For instance, someone might-seek to bring judicial review proceedings after five months, find that he is not given the discretion and then go away and think whether there might be some other means by which those proceedings may still be initiated within the 12-month period. That is why earlier I asked whether it is not the case that, in 99 per cent. of those cases, judicial review will be the normal


means of seeking redress. I should like the Minister to respond to that. Although I accept that there may be occasions when other proceedings apply, I am bound to say that they do not readily spring to mind, and I would therefore expect judicial review to be the normal procedure.
I am concerned that we are getting into muddied waters. I appreciate what the Government are trying to achieve, and I realise that, to many people, three months seems a very short period. However, three months, with the usual exceptions granted by the courts, seems to have worked pretty well for judicial review. If that is the case, I wonder whether three months is not the better period to fix, because it concentrates people's minds and invites them to make the necessary application if they feel that there are exceptional circumstances.
7 pm
The Government amendment suggests a twin-track approach, which may create much more complex litigation that will clog up the courts as they start to determine what other means might be legitimate within the 12-month period to bring proceedings that are other than proceedings for judicial review. I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. I do not want to labour the point. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on this matter because the key point is that the redress should be as simple as possible. If we start creating enormous complexities for the method of redress, it will not be in the interests of those who have justifiable grounds for seeking redress under the Bill.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I know that he supports the Bill and that he is trying to be helpful. He is trying to ask whether we would be creating novel legal procedures to circumvent judicial review. In considering any application that sought to do that, the courts would take account not only of the wording of the Bill, but, under Pepper v. Hart, what I said as the Minister presenting the Bill.
It is not our intention to create a vast array of novel features that would allow litigants to pursue cases in courts in a way that the courts and Parliament had not intended. However, someone with a genuine human rights grievance will be entitled to pursue it under clause 7(1)(a), whether or not he is within the time limit for judicial review. We accept that that should be so. The amendment seeks to insert a one-year time limit for clause 7(1)(a) so that the courts have time to make a judgment. We have not sought to constrain that time too much because paragraph (b) of our amendment allows the courts to decide when they wish to go beyond the 12-month period, should it be equitable to do so.
We are conscious that it is important that the person is allowed to pursue any action under clause 7(1)(a). We do not want to create an artificial time limit of three months, as the Opposition seek to do, without giving the level of flexibility that is needed. The amendment would tie the procedure too tightly to the judicial review procedure. The courts will develop their own jurisprudence on this issue, over time. I agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that we want to keep matters simple and straightforward,

but the courts will take note of what Parliament has said, and will be able to consider the points that I have made as Minister at the Dispatch Box. They will understand that we are seeking not to create novel areas of litigation, but to continue to pursue matters in the proper and most appropriate way.

Mr. Garnier: We have not seen the Chamber this full since Prime Minister's Question Time, and I can only assume that it is either because the Minister and I have made particularly novel comments that have drawn hon. Members from their offices into the Chamber, or because the Minister without Portfolio is here, and every Labour Back-Bencher should know where the Minister without Portfolio is. We are delighted that he is here to bless the proceedings.
In his concluding remarks, the Minister said that the limitation constriction in the Government amendment applied only to proceedings under clause 7(1)(a), which is true of our amendment. He said that the Government amendment was intended to strike a balance between applicants and respondents. I suggest that ours does, too.
The more I hear the name Pepper v. Hart being bandied about by Ministers or Back Benchers, the more I wish that the judgment could be overturned. It is, and will increasingly be seen as, a highly dangerous judicial intervention into this country's law making. If the Government do nothing else during the next five years—and I dare say they will do other things—I hope that they will consider the case of Pepper v. Hart so that Ministers are not permanently inhibited in their discussions for fear that they may say something that the courts will use in arguments before them.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: There is much to be said for being inhibited.

Mr. Garnier: I can think of many better ways of inhibiting Ministers than the case of Pepper v. Hart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), in his typically helpful way, drew the Committee's attention to a number of points that the Minister courteously dealt with a few moments ago. In the light of the broad agreement in the Committee on the principle behind the amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 42, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
'(3) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent an applicant from bringing an application for judicial review provided that the court considers that he has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates:—[Mr. Maclennan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 35, Noes 243.

Division No. 314]
[7.6 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Cable, Dr Vincent


Baker, Norman
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Ballard, Jackie
Cotter, Brian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brake, Tom
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Breed, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Don (Bath)






Harris, Dr Evan
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Harvey, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Keetch, Paul
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Kirkwood, Archy
Tyler, Paul


Livsey, Richard
Wallace, James


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Willis, Phil


Moore, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oaten, Mark
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Render, David
Mr. John Burnett.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Ainger, Nick
Dawson, Hilton


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Denham, John


Allen, Graham
Dismore, Andrew


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dobbin, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Donohoe, Brian H


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Dowd, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Banks, Tony
Eagle, Maria (L'Pool Garston)


Barron, Kevin
Edwards, Huw


Battle, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beard, Nigel
Ennis, Jeff


Begg, Miss Anne
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bennett, Andrew F
Flint, Caroline


Bermingham, Gerald
Follett, Barbara


Berry, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Blackman, Liz
Galloway, George


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gapes, Mike


Blizzard, Bob
Gardiner, Barry


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Borrow, David
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradshaw, Ben
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Goggins, Paul


Browne, Desmond
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buck, Ms Karen
Grant, Bernie


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hain, peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caplin, Ivor
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caton, Martin
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hepburn, Stephen


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cooper, Yvette
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davidson, Ian
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Barry(Alyn & Deeside)





Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan(Feltham & Heston)
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Ann(Brentford & Isleworth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)
Radice, Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Rammell, Bill


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green)
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Kingham, Ms Tess
(Hamilton S)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooker, Jeff


Laxton, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Lepper, David
Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)


Levitt, Tom
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruane, Chris


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)
Sawford, Phil


Lock, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McDonagh, Siobhain
Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)


Macdonald, Calum
Singh, Marsha


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew(Oxford E)


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


Mactaggart, Fiona
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWalter, Tony
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mandelson, Peter
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)
Stewart, David(Inverness E)


Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury)
Stewart, Ian(Eccles)


Marshall, David(Shettleston)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Maxton, John
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Meale, Alan
Stringer, Graham


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Miller, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Moran, Ms Margaret
(Dewsbury)


Morgan, Ms Julie(Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth R(Harrow W)


Morgan, Rhodri(Cardiff W)
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Todd, Mark


Morris, Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)
Touhig, Don


Mudie, George
Trickett, Jon


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)


Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)
Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)


O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)
Walley, Ms Joan


Olner, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


O'Neill, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Organ, Mrs Diana
Winnick, David


Palmer, Dr Nick
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pickthall, Colin
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Pound, Stephen
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Sir Raymond
Mr. David Jamieson and


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 125, in clause 7, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
'( ) Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of—

(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or
(b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,



but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question, .'—[Mr. Dowd]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 232, Noes 34.

Division No.315]
[7.18 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Doran, Frank


Ainger, Nick
Dowd, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try)NE)
Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)


Allen, Graham
Eagle, Maria (L'Pool Garston)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Edwards, Huw


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Ennis, Jeff


Ashton, Joe
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Atkins, Charlotte
Flint, Caroline


Banks, Tony
Follett, Barbara


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Beard, Nigel
Galloway, George


Begg, Miss Anne
Gapes, Mike


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gardiner, Barry


Bennett, Andrew F
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Roger
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Goggins, Paul


Blears, Ms Hazel
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blizzard, Bob
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Borrow, David
Gunnell, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hain, Peter


Bradshaw, Ben
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Browne, Desmond
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Healey, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caborn, Richard
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cann, Jamie
Hoey, Kate


Caplin, Ivor
Home Robertson, John


Caton, Martin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Howells, Dr Kim


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hurst, Alan


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coaker, Vernon
Illsley, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corston, Ms Jean
Johnson, Alan(Hull W & Hessle)


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Crausby, David
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Keeble, Ms Sally


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Darvill, Keith
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kemp, Fraser


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kidney, David


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dawson, Hilton
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Denham, John
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dismore, Andrew
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dobbin, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Donohoe, Brian H
Laxton, Bob





Lepper, David
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Levitt, Tom
 (Hamilton S)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Jeff


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Roy, Frank


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sawford, Phil


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McIsaac, Shona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool s)
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mullin, Chris
(Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, Bill
Todd, Mark


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Organ, Mrs Diana
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Purchase, Ken
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Quinn, Lawrie
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Radice, Giles



Rammell, Bill
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rapson, Syd
Mr. David Jamieson and


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Baker, Norman
Livsey, Richard


Ballard, Jackie
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brake, Tom
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Burnett, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Sanders, Adrian


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Cotter, Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronnie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick



Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Andrew Stunell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 5, leave out line 18.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 59, in clause 8, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
'(2A) In the case of criminal proceedings, no person shall be acquitted by reason only of a finding that an act of a public authority is unlawful, unless the court has made a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 in relation to those proceedings'.

Mr. Garnier: I hope that I can be reasonably brief in speaking to the amendments.
There will be occasions when a public authority may do something that contravenes a citizen's convention rights, and in so doing gets hold of evidence that may be used in legal proceedings—for example, a criminal case—to achieve a conviction. I think of telephone tapping by the police or some other public authority which, on the face of it, is in breach of article 8 of the convention. That evidence could lead to the conviction of someone for drug smuggling or some sort of criminal conspiracy. I do not need to cite further examples for the Minister to understand the point which I am making.
There are certain weapons, regrettable though their use may be in the narrow context, that a civilised and law-abiding society must have available to it to counter the activities of those who seek to destroy our elected democracy or the foundations of our democratic society. Terrorism, drug smuggling and organised crime are all activities of which no one would approve, but terrorists and drug smugglers have rights under the convention.
When the Bill becomes law, I have absolutely no doubt that there will be such people who, if caught and brought before our criminal courts, will attempt to use any weapon, any legal device, available to secure an acquittal. In their eyes, that acquittal may be right because it is legally sustainable, but in the eyes of right-thinking people generally it will be an abuse. We have tabled the amendments in anticipation of that, and to counter such applications.
Having given that introductory outline, it might assist the Committee if I now deal with the question of derogations in part I of schedule 2. I remind the Committee that amendment No. 59 states:
In the case of criminal proceedings, no person shall be acquitted by reason only of a finding that an act of a public authority is unlawful, unless the court has made a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 in relation to those proceedings.
I hope that I am not being too obtuse, but it seems that, although the Bill was not contemplated in 1988, or even in March 1989, the United Kingdom thought it necessary, as a signatory to the convention, to dissociate itself from some of its terms.
The derogation in schedule 2 affects terrorists, especially terrorists active in Northern Ireland. It states:
There have been in the United Kingdom in recent years"—
we are talking about the 1980s—
campaigns of organised terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland which have manifested themselves in activities which have included repeated murder, attempted murder, maiming,

intimidation and violent civil disturbance and in bombing and fire raising which have resulted in death, injury and widespread destruction of property. As a result, a public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Convention exists in the United Kingdom.
The derogation goes on to say:
The Government found it necessary in 1974 to introduce and since then, in cases concerning persons reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or of certain offences under the legislation, who have been detained for 48 hours, to exercise powers enabling further detention without charge, for periods of up to five days, on the authority of the Secretary of State. These powers are at present to be found in Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, Article 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order 1984 and article 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.
The derogation explains why, in 1988, the UK thought it appropriate, in the interests of its internal security and of protecting its citizens in Northern Ireland and on the mainland of Great Britain, to dissociate itself from the convention provision that prevented detention without trial and unnecessary or unfairly lengthy detention before the bringing of a charge or of a suspect before the court. I certainly do not need to explain to Labour Members—at least, not in this Parliament, although I might have in the last Parliament—why that was necessary. Towards the end of the last Parliament, the Labour Opposition began to see the reason and good sense of what we had done in introducing the 1984 legislation and its attendant provisions.
In 1989, the UK permanent representative to the Council of Europe presented a further notice of derogation to the Secretary General. Again, it related to the 1984 Act, article 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order 1984 and article 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984. The schedule states:
These provisions have been replaced by section 14 of and paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions Act 1989, which make comparable provision.
The rationale for the presentation of that derogation to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 23 March 1989 was the same as the rationale that lay behind the presentation of the derogation signed in December 1988.
Convention rights—which on paper are available to people who seek to undermine our democratic institutions—could be used to the unfair and improper disadvantage of our institutions. I invite the Minister briefly to reassure me that the Government will not, by means of the Bill, prevent Parliament and the courts from reaching just decisions in respect of alleged criminals—or by then, I hope, convicted criminals—even though they may technically have had their human rights interfered with in the process of the criminal investigation.
I come back to the example I gave at the outset. A telephone tap interferes with an individual's human rights. I hope that the Government can see their way to understanding my point and the motive behind my amendments, so that we can reassure our law-abiding


citizens that we do not place the technical human rights of the criminal classes above our affection and respect for the rule of law.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment No. 54 would delete clause 7(7), which states:
Nothing in this Act creates a criminal offence.
We considered whether the Bill should enable criminal proceedings to be brought when a public authority has acted unlawfully, and we concluded that it should not. The Bill contains ample provisions for challenging the acts of a public authority, and the courts have wide-ranging scope to grant an appropriate remedy to the individual affected by an unlawful act. We see no reason to impose a criminal sanction specifically for a breach of the convention.
That is the normal approach. For example, both the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 specifically preclude criminal proceedings for breaches of the prohibition on discriminatory treatment under those Acts. I should perhaps add, for the avoidance of doubt, that some incompatible acts may amount to criminal offences in their own right, and the Bill, including clause 7(7), does not affect that. For example, ill treatment that is contrary to article 3 of the convention on the prohibition of torture may amount to an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In such circumstances, criminal proceedings could be brought, but they would be for an alleged breach of the 1861 Act, not for an alleged failure to comply with article 3.
Amendment No. 59 would insert a new subsection in clause 8 to the effect that a person should not be acquitted in a criminal trial by reason only of a finding that an act of a public authority was unlawful unless the court had made a declaration of incompatibility in relation to those proceedings. I shall first address what I take to be the intention behind the amendment—to restrict the ability of the courts, especially the lower courts, to acquit a person solely on the basis that he has been the victim of an unlawful act by a public authority.
The amendment seems to imply that a person would be "getting away with it" if an acquittal were founded on that ground alone. It suggests that, unlike the many existing domestic freedoms already enjoyed by people in the United Kingdom, convention rights are not to be regarded as inherent rights. I disagree with that: they are supposed to part of our own law. We are giving access to convention rights as part of our own law on the same basis as laws that are dealt with by Strasbourg and subject to the appropriate derogations and reservations.
It is clear how the courts will approach a case in criminal proceedings in which convention points are raised. As a public authority, a court will be required not to act in a way that is incompatible with the convention. It will be unlawful for a court to give a judgment that is incompatible with a convention right, unless it is required to do so to give effect to a provision of primary legislation or a provision made under it.
The fact that, in a particular trial, a public authority is found to have acted unlawfully will not automatically lead to an acquittal. The nature of the act and its impact on the trial as a whole will have to be considered. If the effect of the act is such that, for example, a fair trial is

impossible, an acquittal would be the appropriate outcome. That will not always follow; it will depend on the circumstances of the case. That is no different in principle from decisions that the courts already take—for example, when deciding whether to stay proceedings on the ground of abuse of process.
7.45 pm
It would be quite wrong to attempt to interfere with the courts' discretion in these matters, as the amendment tries to do. In fact, the amendment seems to be misconceived, as it links unlawfulness with the making of a declaration of incompatibility. It implies that, in a criminal trial, there will be both an unlawful act by a public authority and an incompatible provision of legislation that attracts a declaration from the court. If the public authority were acting to give effect to that legislation, then, by virtue of clause 6(2), its act would be protected, and hence not unlawful. To put it the other way, if a public authority has acted unlawfully, it cannot have been acting so as to give effect to an incompatible provision of primary legislation or a provision made under it. No declaration of incompatibility would therefore arise.
There are some other difficulties, which may or may not have been intended by those who tabled the amendment. Magistrates courts and the Crown court do not have the power to make declarations of incompatibility. The amendment would therefore risk triggering a flood of appeals from those courts, as no defendant could be acquitted by them on the sole ground of an unlawful act by a public authority. That would clog up the court system for no good purpose, and would be contrary to our intention that all courts and tribunals should take account of convention rights.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) referred to terrorists. An act covered by the derogation in schedule 2 is not an unlawful act for the purposes of the Bill, so it cannot form the basis of a finding that a public authority has acted unlawfully. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether someone would the convention to found an acquittal. It would be used in the same way as the rules in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and as any of the other provisions of natural justice.
We are giving each person in the United Kingdom the ability to access the rights they already have at Strasbourg. It all comes back to that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be suggesting that someone could be acquitted because that person was able to claim a convention right. That person would have the right to go to Strasbourg if we did not provide him with access to a decision in a domestic court. He would still have that right, but he would have to go to Strasbourg to access it.
The Bill is about access. We are enabling our courts to make decisions much more effectively and to take into account our jurisprudence. We are also ensuring that the Strasbourg court, when reaching decisions, is able to take into account the way in which we have developed our jurisprudence.
The Bill is beneficial, in that it establishes rights and ensures that procedures are properly followed. I understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled the amendment, but I suspect that, if proper methods of investigation are used, it is unlikely that new problems will be created. A claim in a British court that


a particular method of collecting information was inappropriate could be raised in a Strasbourg court; the only difference is where one accesses one's rights. Some seem to think that our people should be able to access their rights only in Strasbourg. We think it best that such matters should be dealt with by our own courts in Britain.

Mr. Garnier: I asked the Minister some questions and he has answered them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 5, leave out lines 19 to 39.

No. 126, in page 5, line 41, after 'court' insert `or tribunal'.

No. 127, in page 5, leave out lines 43 and 44.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 128, in page 6, line 3, leave out from 'may' to end of line 9 and insert
', to the extent he considers it necessary to ensure that the tribunal can provide an appropriate remedy in relation to an act (or proposed act) of a public authority which is (or would be) unlawful as a result of section 6(1), by order add to—

(a) the relief or remedies which the tribunal may grant; or
(b) the grounds on which it may grant any of them.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in page 6, line 5, leave out from 'rights' to end of line 8.
Government amendment No. 129.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall speak first to the two Government amendments, Nos. 128 and 129, and then to amendment No. 58 tabled by the Opposition, which, like amendment No. 128, is concerned with clause 7(13).
Amendment No. 128 clarifies the intended effect of the power in clause 7(13) to make an order in relation to tribunals. I shall explain both the purpose of that clause and the reason for the amendment.
The power conferred by clause 7(13) has been included to cater for situations in which the grounds on which proceedings may be brought before a tribunal are extremely narrowly defined, either by statute or by restrictive judicial interpretation of statutory provisions. In those rare cases, a tribunal would, unless its powers were suitably amplified, be precluded from determining issues relating to the convention rights. The issue that prompted the inclusion of clause 7(13) is the constraints placed on special adjudicators hearing appeals under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.
It was pointed out in another place that the terms of the 1993 Act are such that they would prevent a special adjudicator from hearing an asylum case from determining whether an appellant's removal from the United Kingdom would breach his convention rights when such appeals were dealt with.
Even without subsection (13), an individual would not be left without a remedy under the Human Rights Bill, as he would be able to rely on the convention rights in a subsequent application for judicial review. The better course is for him to rely on convention rights at the time

the case is before the special adjudicator. Clause 7(13) would allow that result to be achieved. In addition, as it has been cast in general terms, it could also be used to benefit other tribunals in the same position as the special adjudicator.
There is, however, a risk that the current wording will be misinterpreted. In particular, there is a possibility that some might read it as implying that no tribunal will be able to take account of the convention rights unless and until a Minister makes an order under clause 7(13). The argument might run that, since no tribunals have in their parent statute express authority to determine convention questions or to grant remedies in respect of convention violations, tribunals may conclude that they are not to have regard to the convention rights without being given express authority to do so.
That is not our intention. The great majority of tribunals would not be debarred from having regard to the convention rights. It is an important principle of the Bill that they should do so. The amendment simply seeks to achieve the purpose of clause 7(13) in a way which does not lead to any misunderstanding on that score. It makes it clear that the power to make an order applies only where it is necessary to ensure that the tribunal in question can provide an appropriate remedy in respect of an unlawful act. I should add that, by virtue of clause 20(4), any order would need to be approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament.
One other change to clause 7(13) to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee is the removal of the reference to a tribunal's "jurisdiction". On reflection, we consider that the meaning of the term in this context is unclear. That adjustment leads to a consequential change in the wording of clause 8(1) on remedies. Amendment No. 129 accordingly substitutes a reference to "powers" in place of "jurisdiction".
The Opposition's amendment No. 58 deletes paragraph (b) of clause 7(13) as it currently stands. That paragraph enables a Minister to make rules by order which give a tribunal jurisdiction
to grant in respect of acts (or proposed acts) of public authorities which are (or would be) unlawful as a result of section 6(1) such relief or remedy' of a kind that it has power to grant".
I have already explained why the powers of a tribunal might need to be extended in some rare cases. The effect of amendment No. 58 would be to neuter those additional powers. It would still enable a tribunal to take account of convention points which it could otherwise not do, but it would not enable the tribunal to give practical effect to its determination. The remedies that the tribunal would usually be able to deploy, having reached its decision, would arise from the primary legislation governing it. It follows that, if a tribunal is to be able to grant a remedy, having determined a case involving a convention issue, specific provision needs to be made to do that. That is why we have put in place those changes.
I come now to the special adjudicators, and the Opposition's amendment, which involves an important point. The concern which prompted the inclusion of clause 7(13) was our wish to ensure that provision should be made to permit an appellant in an appeal under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 to appeal also on the ground that the decision in question would be unlawful under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act. As things stand, unless the appeal is a mixed appeal, the special adjudicator lacks the power to entertain that appeal.


Clause 7(13) will enable the Secretary of State to confer power on the special adjudicator to consider claims relating to the convention rights, notwithstanding the restriction in the 1993 Act, and to provide a remedy if a public authority acts in a way that is incompatible with those rights. An appellant who succeeded in arguing that his removal from the United Kingdom would be unlawful under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act would not be granted asylum, but would be irremovable from the United Kingdom and eligible for exceptional leave to remain.
The Opposition's amendment, by removing from clause 7(13) the scope to add to the remedies that a tribunal can grant, may in fact have a result which I imagine Opposition Members do not intend. It might require a special adjudicator to grant a successful appellant asylum even where his appeal was based on convention grounds, as the adjudicator would have no other remedy open to him.
Having explained the purpose behind clause 7(13), I hope that the Opposition will not press amendment No. 58, because I am not sure that it does what they think it does.

Mr. Garnier: The Minister teased me by suggesting that the Opposition had tabled an amendment that would not do what we intended. I yield to no one in my admiration of the Minister for his knowledge of asylum law. I do not suppose that any hon. Member knows more about it than he does; he has been on a steep learning curve. In his previous existence as a practising solicitor, he might have done quite a lot of asylum work—

Mr. O'Brien: No, none at all.

Mr. Garnier: My admiration for the hon. Gentleman is all the greater for that. If there is one aspect of the law that I would wish to keep well clear of it is asylum law.
I found the Minister's explanation of Government amendment No. 128 extremely helpful. I can say without equivocation that we agree with Government amendment No. 129. It is a sensible amendment, with which it would be sensible to agree.
The Opposition had thought that amendment No. 58 was clear, less wordy, and within the spirit of the clause and Government amendment No. 128. However, having heard the Minister's explanation of Government amendment No. 128, I am content to allow it to be substituted for ours. The Minister's reasons for it were understood by me as a layman in this context, and sensible in their intent and purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

JUDICIAL ACTS

Amendment made: No. 129, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out 'jurisdiction' and insert `powers'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

8 pm

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 61, page 6, line 32, at end insert
`and the court may take into account the conduct of the applicant in relation to the unlawful act giving rise to the proceedings'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 130.

Mr. Garnier: Mr. Lord, I begin by saying welcome to clause 8. We are a little way into our deliberations, which have been useful. I think that the Minister will agree that we have so far made steady progress, and that we shall now make even steadier progress. Amendment No. 91 seeks to—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. It is amendment No. 61, not 91.

Mr. Garnier: Here are my glasses. I used to think that I was rather young, but, after five hours in Committee, I am beginning to doubt it.
The two amendments in this group seek to introduce into the regime under the Bill principles broadly akin to those affecting contributory negligence and—in relation to the Government's amendment—to those dealing with contribution proceedings. I hope that I have reasonably accurately summarised the Government's intention in their amendment.
In moving amendment No. 61, the Opposition are inviting the Committee to agree with us that, when damages or some judicial remedy akin to damages is to be awarded, the court should take into account the conduct of the applicant in relation to the unlawful act giving rise to the proceedings. I shall come at the matter with a brief explanation of the law relating to contributory negligence, which I hope will be of assistance to the Committee in understanding our amendment.
Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, principles that were well known under maritime law—under the Maritime Conventions Act 1911—were introduced to negligence on land. In current law, damages may be apportioned whenever both parties have been negligent and both have contributed to the damage. Section 1(1) of the 1945 Act provides:
Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage".
In the majority of cases, the plaintiff's negligence will have contributed to the accident that led to his injury—for example, when a driver or pedestrian fails to keep a proper lookout, or an employee omits to turn off a machine before cleaning it. However, that is not necessary for a finding of contributory negligence. What is essential is that the plaintiffs conduct contributes to his damage. Therefore, in that context, one could expect a reduction in the damages awarded when a motor cyclist fails to wear a crash helmet, a passenger fails to wear a seat belt, a man rides in a dangerous position on the back of a dustbin lorry, or someone gets into a car and goes on a journey, with a driver whom the passenger knows to have taken far too much drink.


Broadly speaking, two principal criteria of responsibility suggest themselves—causation, and blameworthiness or culpability. However, I suggest that there is no single principle for apportionment of damages in cases of contributory negligence; certainly no mathematical approach is possible. No doubt the extent of the plaintiff's lack of care for his own safety must be a major factor in all cases, but the court is directed by the statute to do what is "just and equitable".
The matter is thus one for the discretion of the court. Although the discretion must be exercised judicially, it is both unnecessary and undesirable that the exercise of the discretion should be fettered by rigid rules requiring the court to take into account some aspects of the given case and to reject others. However, if the court comes to the conclusion that the actions of both parties contributed to the damage, it has power neither to disregard the plaintiff's fault nor to hold the plaintiff guilty of 100 per cent. contributory negligence.
I used the analogy of contributory negligence in tort to illustrate the point that we are attempting to get across in amendment No. 61. We ask that, under the Bill, the court should be given a discretion to take into account the applicant's conduct in relation to the unlawful act giving rise to the proceedings. I hope that, having used the example of existing contributory negligence law, I do not have to belabour the point—which, I hope, reveals itself quite simply to the Committee after use of that illustration.
We do not quarrel with Government amendment No. 130—I hope that I can anticipate the Minister's remarks on it. He knows as well as I do that, in civil law, contribution proceedings are governed by the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, and that, under that Act, arrangements are available under the rules of the Supreme Court—especially in order 16—which provide for a structure by which cases can be progressed and in which an apportionment or indemnity can be worked out for their respective liability for the same wrong as between defendants or respondents.
I invite the Committee to accept Government amendment No. 130—no doubt after first listening carefully to the Minister's comments on it. Equally, I shall be very happy if the Committee accepts our amendment No. 61, not as a quid pro quo, but simply because it is sensible and it would defy common sense—unless the Minister can persuade me that it does not—not to accept it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, Government amendment No. 130 is concerned with contribution. The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 provides a right to contribution when more than one person is liable for the same damage. We see no reason why that standard provision should not apply when damages are awarded against a public authority under clause 8 of the Bill. The amendment makes it clear that the terms of the 1978 Act and the relevant provisions in Scotland—section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940—apply to the award of such damages. I heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and will therefore take that matter no further.
I shall try to deal with some of the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman made on amendment No. 61, which would operate on clause 8(4) of the Bill. Clause

8(4) provides that, in determining whether to award damages for an unlawful act of a public authority or the amount of any award, a court must take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation.
Amendment No. 61 would add to that provision by specifically enabling the court to take into account the conduct of the applicant—the person bringing proceedings against a public authority—in relation to the act that was found to be unlawful. The intention is presumably to send a signal to the courts to reduce the amount of any award if the applicant is regarded as undeserving.
It may help if I say something about the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation. Article 50 of the convention, which will become article 41 when protocol 11 comes into force later this year, provides that in the event of a finding of a violation,
the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party".
There is no entitlement to an award, and the court's discretion is guided by the particular circumstances of each and every case. On many occasions, the court has held that no award should be made because the finding of a violation itself constituted just satisfaction. It appears from the court's judgments that matters such as the applicant's conduct and the limited nature of the breach are relevant factors. An interesting case in that regard, and one that most of us would remember, is the 1995 judgment in the case of McCann and others v. UK, in which the court, in dismissing the applicant's claim for damages, had regard to the fact that the three terrorist suspects who were killed had intended to plant a bomb in Gibraltar.
In our view, therefore, the requirement to take into account the principles applied in Strasbourg already allows the court to have regard to the conduct of the applicant, and it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to insert a specific reference to it. Also, it would be undesirable to do so, because the purpose of the Bill is to reflect Strasbourg thinking on the award of compensation, and the insertion of an additional condition of this kind could imply only that we wanted to gloss the court's thinking in some way. That is not our purpose. Our purpose is to use the way in which those decisions are reached to guide our courts.
The basic argument that I am putting to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough is that his amendment is unnecessary, because the Bill can deal with the issues under the provisions by which the Strasbourg courts currently decide such matters. Therefore, I hope that, on full consideration of what I have said, the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Garnier: I had fondly hoped that my arguments warranted something more than basic arguments from the Minister, but I know what he meant, and in the light of his explanation of the powers given to the court under the existing jurisprudence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 130, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—

`( ) A public authority against which damages are awarded is to be treated—

(a) in Scotland, for the purposes of section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 as if the award were made in an action of damages in which the authority has been found liable in respect of loss or damage to the person to whom the award is made;
(b) for the purposes of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act
1978 as liable in respect of damage suffered by the
person to whom the award is made.'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

POWER TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, after 'stated', insert 'in writing'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 63, in clause 10, page 7, line 27, leave out
`a Minister of the Crown or'.
New clause 2—No remedial order before determination of European Commission of Human Rights—
`.—Where

(a) a Court, as defined in section 4(5), has made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of any legislation and where there is no further domestic right of appeal; but
(b) it nonetheless appears to a Minister of the Crown that it is desirable in the public interest that the question of compatibility, and all and any issues arising in the proceedings which have given rise thereto should not be the subject of any remedial order unless and until such issues shall have been fully considered by the European Commission of Human Rights or, if admissible, should have been the subject of a judgement, decision, declaration or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights;

he may issue a certificate to the said effect in writing, and in such event the said declaration shall be of no effect pending consideration of the said issues by the Commission and the Court.'.

Mr. Garnier: We now come to one of the two most important debates this evening. The amendments deal with the right of appeal by the Government or a public authority.
Clause 10 is the first of three clauses grouped under the heading "Remedial action". One has only to mention those words for the Home Secretary to come rushing in rather like the US cavalry. I am delighted to see him, so long as he does not think that I am wearing a black hat or considers me to be a dangerous rebel. He has not missed very much, as the Minister will confirm as he leaves to get something to eat.
The amendments are in respect of the remedial action clauses, 10, 11 and 12. Clause 10 deals with the power to take remedial action, clause 11 concerns remedial orders, and clause 12 sets out the procedure under which orders can be made.
8.15 pm
The amendments seek to provide a right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg for the Government and for public bodies that are not satisfied with the decision of the final domestic court of appeal in any particular case. The deeper purpose is to ensure that the human rights regime set up under the Bill is one in which the human rights law that applies in the United Kingdom is Strasbourg law—the same body of law that applies to the 30 or so other member states of the Council of Europe—and not a separate body of human rights law applicable only to the United Kingdom.
In other words, we do not seek—nor do we believe that it is the Government's intention—that the Bill should be used by our courts as a substitute written constitution, against which all our legislation should be tested and potentially struck down, notwithstanding that the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg would have found no such incompatibility.
One example is abortion. It is unlikely that our courts would go so far, but, in the USA and Canada, the courts have overturned the legislature on such subjects. For our part, the official Opposition wish to ensure that, before the convention is put to any such extreme use, the issue is fully ventilated at Strasbourg and the vital doctrine of margin of appreciation is given full and proper expression.
I hope that I shall command the agreement of both sides of the Committee when I say that we are discussing a matter of considerable constitutional importance. The presence of the Home Secretary—and the fact that he is nodding in agreement—lends support to that argument.
New clause 2 is necessary in order to give the margin of appreciation full and proper expression, and to ensure that the convention is not put to extreme use in the sense that I outlined in relation to abortion in the USA and Canada. It is not generally known that Governments and public bodies do not have any direct right of appeal to the Strasbourg institutions; hence it is necessary to achieve the same result by enabling the ruling of the domestic court to be suspended unless and until the aggrieved citizen takes the matter to Strasbourg.
New clause 2 reads as follows:
Where
(a) a Court, as defined in section 4(5)"—
the courts that have powers to make declarations of incompatibility or, broadly, our High Court—
has made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of any legislation and where there is no further domestic right of appeal; but
(b) it nonetheless appears to a Minister of the Crown that it is desirable in the public interest that the question of compatibility, and all and any issues arising in the proceedings which have given rise thereto should not be the subject of any remedial order unless and until such issues shall have been fully considered by the European Commission of Human Rights or, if admissible, should have been the subject of a judgement, decision, declaration or opinion or the European Court of Human Rights;
he"—
the Minister of the Crown—
may issue a certificate to the said effect in writing, and in such event the said declaration shall be of no effect pending consideration of the said issues by the Commission and the Court.
Part of the wording of paragraph (b) is redundant, because the European Commission of Human Rights will shortly cease to exist, and a new court system will apply. However, our point is equally valid under the existing arrangements or the new ones.


I hope that our courts will only rarely find it necessary to strike down legislation. Likewise, I hope that the Government and public bodies will only rarely find it necessary to use the power. However, it is important that the power should be available. We must be under no illusion: many litigants, with or without legal aid, will push at the frontiers of the new jurisdiction. It is essential that the courts know that Parliament intends that the regime under the European convention should be available in our domestic courts, not a home-grown Bill of Rights regime advocated by some.
That does not mean that we should never extend our human rights and liberties through domestic legislation. In our own English way, we have done so, and have led the world. However, that should be done by tailor-made primary legislation, honed and crafted in Parliament, not by incorporating a convention designed at other times for other purposes.
There will be nothing to prevent our courts from expanding convention rights beyond what might be the view of the Strasbourg court. Under clause 2, our judges will take account of Strasbourg decisions, but, as Sir Brian Cubbon, a former permanent under-secretary at the Home Office has said, they will have
a free hand to blaze a trail for human rights".
In the absence of new clause 2, the Bill provides the aggrieved citizen with a two-way bet. If our courts find for him, the public authority or the Government cannot appeal to Strasbourg. However, if the citizen loses, he can appeal to Strasbourg. That will exacerbate the fears of Europhobes that there is an anti-British bias. I am not such a person, but I understand those fears. The new clause should help the Government—I always want to help the Home Secretary, if not the Government as a whole—and should be helpful in the wider context of dealing with the future development of Europe and our relationship with it.
Many a red herring is raised in the great debate about Europe. There is huge confusion between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. There is just as much confusion about the powers that have been taken away from the House under European Communities Acts and what we are discussing. Those are real fears for many, albeit misconceived. We have to deal with them, and there is no better time to do so than now, through the new clause. I am not suggesting that it will eradicate the wrong-headed fears of some, but, if it contributes in some small way to ending those fears, I trust that the Government will at least give it some attention, even if they do not take their hat off to it.
The constitutional implications of passing clause 10 unamended will be considerable. The stresses already placed on our constitution by, for example, section 2(4) of the European Communities Act 1972, and the fears, well founded or not, of a central European bank that is unaccountable to our electors, are manifest. The growth of the Referendum party before the last election, and the growth in other European countries—and to some extent in this country—of nasty, violent nationalism, fuelled by feelings of increasing political impotence and irrelevance among our citizens, are warning signals that we ignore at our peril.
Our constitution has evolved over many centuries. It is flexible and robust, but it is not indestructible. I acquit the Home Secretary of wanting to undermine or destroy the

constitution, or of any charge of lack of patriotic feeling for this country. The Government and the party that perhaps one day he will lead must not allow themselves to be seduced by their large parliamentary majority into legislative complacency.
I am happy to see two and a half of the Back Bench Members who make up the Government's majority present in Committee—I count the parliamentary private secretary as halfway on to the Front Bench. Perhaps through a lack of intellectual curiosity, or any curiosity, perhaps through a fear of speaking out of turn, going off message or saying what they think—if they think at all—Labour Back Benchers have been slow to contribute to our debates on the Bill.
That is a pity, because, as hon. Members on both sides accept, the Bill will have greater implications for the constitutional development of the country than many people who have thought about it are prepared to admit. When members of the governing party are conspicuous by their absence, with one or two notable exceptions—perhaps it is because I have been on my feet for too long—

Mr. James Cran: Never.

Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful—my worries are further exacerbated.
Labour Members should take part in our deliberations to justify the manifesto on which they were elected and so that they can explain to their constituents what they are doing to our constitution. They will not be able to do that unless they pay attention. Their constituents will want to know what they are doing to advance and protect their interests and the democratic institutions that have served us so well for centuries.
It will do Labour Members little good to stand at the hustings in two or three years proclaiming, "I can do nothing for you, because I gave away my powers as your elected representative to the courts or to bodies outside Parliament, or even offshore"—that is not a dig at the Paymaster General. We should not lightly cut the link between us and our constituents, nor should we break down the barrier that has, wisely and successfully, long separated the three sources of power in our constitution—the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
Machiavelli said:
Let no man who begins an innovation in a state expect that he shall stop it at his pleasure or regulate it according to his pleasure.
I accept that, when we, as convinced parliamentarians, are dealing with the powers of this House over the Executive and the courts, it is easy, if forgivable, to be tempted towards hyperbole, but if the balance that has served our constitution well is to be preserved, we should protect the institutions of democratically accountable government as much as the rights of the citizen to appeal to Strasbourg.
As currently drafted, the Bill reveals an imbalance. The Government—the Crown in Parliament—must be held to account in this place. The Government, through Parliament and elsewhere, must be responsive to the needs, aspirations and fears of our citizens. However, they should not be hobbled when it comes to dealing with cases involving the European convention as integrated into our domestic law by their inability to have recourse directly to Strasbourg.


8.30 pm
Under the Bill and the current arrangements, the Executive—the Government, the United Kingdom—have no right of appeal to Strasbourg. The same applies to all the public authorities we were discussing last week during consideration of clause 6, under which public authorities are defined not so much by who they are as by what they do at any given time. There has been a great deal of discussion in the press, in the Chamber and elsewhere about what constitutes a public authority. The Press Complaints Commission was the classic example, given time and time again. That is hardly surprising, since the press were most concerned about the effects of the Bill upon them.
There are other bodies—I will not list them now, because it would be tedious, and because, if anyone is interested, they can look at the report of our earlier proceedings—which could, in my submission, be unfairly and irredeemably affected by the way in which the Bill is drafted.
I urge the Government to give careful consideration to new clause 2. I am not claiming that it is perfect in every way. I have already admitted that certain parts of subsection (b)—those dealing with the European Commission of Human Rights—will soon be rendered redundant.
I anticipate the remark that the Home Secretary usually so kindly makes at this stage about the fact that he understands the difficulty of drafting in opposition, because he spent 18 years doing it. I can assure him that I have no intention of spending more than five years doing it. I look forward to occupying the Government Benches, together with all my hon. Friends, after the next election. In the interim, doing the best we can, we are happy to put before the Committee new clause 2. I hope that the Home Secretary will respond, as he usually does, in a reasoned and courteous way.
Amendment No. 62—I will deal with the broader issue first—requires the insertion of "in writing" after the word "stated" in clause 10, line 21. The clause should then read:
This section applies if—
(a) a provision of legislation has been declared under section 4 to be incompatible with a Convention right and, if an appeal lies—
(i) all persons who may appeal have stated in writing that they do not intend to do so".
The Home Secretary may be able to deal with that easily, because there may be some precedent or custom and practice which says that, throughout the Bill or in similar Acts, when a person wishes to say something with regard to his rights of appeal, it must be done in writing. It is not clear from the Bill as I understand it, but there may be other sources of learning that the Home Secretary keeps up his sleeve to deal with Opposition amendments such as this. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Amendment No. 63 suggests that we should leave out the words:
a Minister of the Crown or
in clause 10(1)(b). At present, the subsection states:
it appears to a Minister of the Crown or Her Majesty in Council that, having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights made after the coming into force of this section in

proceedings against the United Kingdom, a provision of legislation is incompatible with an obligation of the United Kingdom arising from the Convention.
This may bring a smile to the Home Secretary's face, but I have to confess that I fail to understand that amendment, and I will say no more about it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I accept entirely what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said about the importance of the role of Parliament. I have made that clear throughout the debate. As we spelled out in the White Paper and have spelt out continually ever since, we have been acute about the need to ensure that nothing in this very important Bill undermines the sovereignty or the powers of this Parliament.
The hon. and learned Gentleman delivered an elegant homily about the fact that we should not give away our rights to the courts or compromise the separation of powers. He said that it was important to protect the institution of democratic government as well as the right of electors. I not only subscribe to that, but have sought to ensure that those principles have been put into effect in the Bill.
As the hon. and learned Member has pointed out, clause 10 is an important clause. I suspect that we will debate at even greater length the issue of remedial orders on the next group of amendments, but I should like to respond to the points made on amendments Nos 62 and 63 and new clause 2.
Clause 10(1) describes the circumstances in which the power to make a remedial order applies. The first—clause 10(1)(a)—is where a domestic court has made a declaration of incompatibility and there is no prospect of an appeal, either because those who may appeal have stated that they do not intend to do so, or for other specified reasons. The provisions about appeals were inserted in another place to guard against the possibility of legislation being amended by a remedial order in response to a declaration of incompatibility which was then overturned on appeal.
Amendment No. 62 would require persons stating they do not intend to appeal to do so "in writing" before the power to make a remedial order could be exercised. That is what is likely to happen anyway, because the only way in which clause 10(1) can operate in practice will be for the person making the order, if he wishes to proceed urgently before the time for appealing has expired, to take proactive steps by seeking statements from all interested parties to the effect that they do not propose to appeal. I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for spotting what could have been an ambiguity in the Bill. Amendment No. 62 is excellently drafted, and we propose to accept it.
The second circumstance in which the power to make a remedial order applies—clause 10(1)(b)—is where the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the convention in proceedings against the United Kingdom, and it appears to a Minister of the Crown or to Her Majesty in Council that a provision of legislation is incompatible with an obligation of the United Kingdom arising from the convention.
The hon. and learned Member was generous enough to say that he did not entirely understand amendment No. 63. In the small hours of the night during a Finance Bill


Standing Committee in 1981, I think, I had to say something similar about an amendment that I had drafted myself. Embarrassingly, my words were then included in a textbook on legislation in Parliament, written by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—so I understand the problem. From what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I assume that he will seek leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Garnier: Perhaps.

Mr. Straw: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should do so.
The point of having the Minister of the Crown is that he or she normally has to exercise those duties. The burden of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks is contained in new clause 2, which provides for no remedial order to be made following a declaration of incompatibility if a Minister of the Crown considers that the issues raised by the declaration should be considered in Strasbourg.
New clause 2 seems to be based on two assumptions. The first is that a declaration of incompatibility will have some legal effect unless a ministerial certificate is issued. The second is that the Government must make a remedial order following a declaration of incompatibility. Neither of those assumptions is true. As clause 4(6) makes clear, a declaration of incompatibility does not affect the continuing validity, operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given. That is a crucial part of the Bill to preserve the sovereignty of this Parliament.
In most cases, a Minister's view is endorsed by Parliament, and if a Minister decides that it is not appropriate for the Government to take action in respect of the declaration of incompatibility, no action need be taken. In controversial cases, the Minister's decision might have to be endorsed by the House. Indeed, the Opposition could force it to be endorsed, so it would always be subject to that possibility, which is right.
Nor is there any obligation on the Government to remedy any incompatibility by means of a remedial order. We expect that the Government will generally want to do so, just as successive Governments have sought, as we will discuss on the next group of amendments, to put right any declaration by the Strasbourg court by way of legislation or Executive action in the United Kingdom. That is the effect of clause 10, and it is the logical consequence of our decision that the courts are not to have a power to set aside Acts of Parliament under this Bill.
Therefore, although I understand the point of new clause 2, it would not achieve anything. Nothing in it could not equally be achieved—and will not equally be achieved—within the framework of the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Maclennan: Obviously this is hypothetical, but in the event of the circumstance that he described arising and a Minister recommending that no action be taken, does the right hon. Gentleman assume that the Government would feel obliged to derogate from the relevant provision of the European convention?

Mr. Straw: No, I do not. That would arise only if there had been an adverse judgment by the court—I was about to deal with that. Normally in such a circumstance, if the

Government had refused to accept a clear declaration of incompatibility—for example, by the Judicial Committee of the other place, the highest court of the land—the victim, who would be the applicant in the action, would take the matter to the Strasbourg court. In practice, in most cases, an appeal to the European court in Strasbourg would naturally follow.
The assumptions implicit in new clause 2 and some of the other remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough demonstrate a misreading of the convention—that it is somehow possible for a Government party to effect an appeal to the Strasbourg court. The convention is so drawn that the only parties that can make an application to the Strasbourg court are the citizens, or residents, of the country, as the convention exists to protect the rights of the individual against the state.
A state has never, under the convention, been able to take action before the Strasbourg court. Given the conceptual, jurisprudential structure of the convention, that would be entirely otiose—it would entirely reverse the convention's purpose. Even if the House of Commons was determined that the state should have a right of appeal in the Strasbourg court against the decision of a higher court in this country, that could not be effected under the convention.
I should also say to Conservative Members, whose interest in the sovereignty of Parliament is at least as strong as ours, that, if we were to seek to do that, we would genuinely be open to the charge that we were undermining the power of Parliament by setting above it a supreme international court with powers over this country's courts. The only way in which to avoid that would be to withdraw from the convention, which we would not want to do. We believe that the way in which the convention has been applied over the years, particularly with the margin of appreciation, is sensible, so I suggest that it would not be desirable to go down that road.

Mr. Lansley: The Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but is it not entirely possible, under new clause 2, not so much that the Government would contemplate resolving issues through the European convention on human rights or the court, as that parties to those proceedings might do so?

Mr. Straw: Of course it is correct to say that parties to the proceedings may voluntarily decide to take a case to the Strasbourg court. Even if there is a declaration of incompatibility, and a remedial order amending primary legislation is put through the House of Commons and the other place, it is still open to the other party to the proceedings to take the matter to the court, although I suggest that they would get short shrift if they sought to do so.
New clause 2 would effect a right of appeal to the Government. It tries to get around the way in which the convention has been constructed by requiring the victim to exercise his existing rights to go to Strasbourg so that the case could be considered there before anything happened at home.
I do not think that that is a sensible way in which to proceed. In practice, if the Government and Parliament refused to act on a declaration of incompatibility, the


so-called victim—the citizen—would almost certainly take the case to Strasbourg. If the victim did not, but accepted that the Government and Parliament were right to ignore the declaration of incompatibility, I see no reason why anyone would want to pursue the matter to Strasbourg. For those reasons, I hope that the Opposition will see fit to not to press new clause 2 and amendment No. 63.

Mr. Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to suggest that the new clause is a device. It has to be a device, for the reasons that I had hoped I had explained and that he himself expressed—the state does not have a right to go to Strasbourg; it is for the citizen to do that.
What happens in this example, however? A case fought between a citizen and a public authority—be it a Government authority or some other public authority—eventually reaches the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which says that the legislation we are discussing is incompatible with the citizen's conventional rights. The citizen therefore wins in our domestic courts. However, the political will of Parliament and the advice of the Government are that that is a mistake.
What does the Home Secretary suggest the Government—it does not matter which Government—should do in those circumstances? Under the Bill, the Government are stuck. The purpose of new clause 2 is to overcome a logjam.

Mr. Straw: Let me try to put the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind at rest. There will be no logjam. If there had been a declaration of incompatibility, and the Government and Parliament had decided not to act on it, I would guess that, in most cases, the applicant would take the case to Strasbourg. That almost certainly follows. However, in the rare examples where that did not happen, the status quo ante would obtain because of clause 4(6), which makes it clear that
A declaration under this section ("a declaration of incompatibility")—

(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and
(b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made."

If the issue before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords was, say, whether a statutory instrument was ultra vires, the Committee could use its existing powers to deal with that issue. If, however, the issue was a piece of primary legislation that was incompatible with the convention, on which the Judicial Committee had made a declaration that the Government and Parliament had decided not to accept, and on which there had been no appeal to Strasbourg, the original piece of primary legislation would stay in force. There would be no logjam, and that is why the new clause is not necessary.
To set up, by whatever device, a system by which the Government of the day—and therefore Parliament—would be able to appeal to the Strasbourg court, would be to elevate that court to a position of supremacy over Parliament, a circumstance that very few Members on either side of the House wish to bring about.

Mr. Maclennan: This interesting debate has revealed, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) earlier

implied, that there are significant consequences in the Bill for the sovereignty of Parliament. If, after a declaration of incompatibility, the Government of the day decide not to act but to recommend an amendment to the House, as the Bill prescribes, it will, the Home Secretary tells us, be none the less probable that the matter will go to Strasbourg. It is unlikely, to say the least, that the court there will differ from the highest court in the United Kingdom on the interpretation of the issue. All that will happen is that the remedy for the aggrieved party will be substantially delayed.
At some point, however, the issue would arise whether the Government would accept the ruling of the court in Strasbourg. I think that the Bill maintains a fiction. If the Government took the view that a particular incompatibility was one with which they would wish to live—if, in other words, they decided not to implement the finding of the highest court in our country—the proper step would be to derogate straight away and to indicate that, for reasons of public policy, which would be defensible under the terms of the convention, they did not wish to give effect to convention rights.
I make that point only because I do not share the general view, expressed by the Government and echoed by the official Opposition, that it is desirable to sustain parliamentary sovereignty, which I believe is a doctrine at least 100 years out of date. I would prefer a genuine separation of powers, rather than lip service being paid to it, and sovereignty to rest with the people.

Mr. Leigh: I do not agree that parliamentary sovereignty is an idea 100 years out of date, but the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has done the Committee a service by revealing the fiction that lies at the heart of clause 10—the fig leaf that preserves parliamentary sovereignty.
At this late hour, it is easy for us, in a sparsely filled Chamber, to be lulled into a false sense of security by the charming way in which the Home Secretary debates these matters, which he does very effectively. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a powerful speech, which may be read again in future years. I hope that I do not resort to hyperbole, but it was a fine speech, which revealed some of the problems of which the House should be aware.
The new ministerial power to amend legislation by order is very broad. It is a virtual carte blanche, which grants Henry VIII powers to Ministers. Ministers should not lightly dismiss our fears.

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Mr. Leigh: I am glad to see the Home Secretary shaking his head.

Mr. Straw: The next group of amendments includes several tabled by the Government that pick up concerns expressed by hon. Members, especially Conservative Members. They severely restrict the circumstances in which remedial orders could be made.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that intervention, which makes it clear that the Home Secretary and the Government take our fears very seriously.


Again, I do not want resort to hyperbole, but it has become fashionable to decry our record on civil liberties and human rights. We have nothing to be ashamed of over the past 200 years. With its unwritten constitution, our country has been a beacon for civil liberties. Amending the constitution is a very serious matter, as I am sure everyone realises. I hope that we are not taking a dangerous course.
Let me describe what could happen. Under clause 10(3)(b), a Minister can make such amendments "as he considers appropriate". He can amend primary and secondary legislation to make it compatible with the convention. United Kingdom courts can make declarations of incompatibility under clause 4(6), which the Home Secretary was searching for earlier. Courts can make a finding that a provision of UK statute law is incompatible with the convention. Strasbourg can also make such a finding.
This is where we have the fig leaf of parliamentary sovereignty. Such directions are not meant in themselves to strike down the legislation, as happens in Canada and the United States. The ministerial power arises once a final court order has been made that cannot be further appealed against and in which there is a finding of incompatibility, or—this is the important point in clause 10(1)(b)—if it appears to a Minister that
a finding of the European Court of Human Rights
in proceedings involving our country means that
a provision of legislation is incompatible".
I believe, and I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough believes, that that power should and must be more narrowly drawn. It might appear to a Minister that a finding of the Strasbourg court requires legislation to be amended, even though that was never the intention of the court. If the power is to be given, it should be invoked only when there is a judgment from Strasbourg that states unequivocally that there is incompatibility. That would be a safer course.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will not accuse me of being a Euro-enthusiast at this point, but, in my respectful judgment, I believe that to be a safer course than leaving such matters to the personal opinion of the Minister. The Bill refers to
such amendments … as he considers appropriate",
but I believe that that gives too much power to the Minister to overturn or interfere with legislation passed by Parliament. The words "such amendments as are necessary" would be preferable.
9 pm
The Government are giving strong powers to their Ministers; we should be aware of that. To defend his position, the Home Secretary said that it was not simply a matter of giving powers to Ministers, because the power to make remedial orders is subject to parliamentary scrutiny; but the Committee should be aware that that is very limited scrutiny.
Only 60 days are allowed for consideration of draft remedial orders, but there is no indication of how much parliamentary time will be given to the actual debate. Debates on statutory instruments are often limited to 90 minutes. Members of Parliament and peers will not be able to move amendments to the Government's draft

order-only to accept or reject it in its entirety. Urgent remedial orders can be made without initial parliamentary consideration, and 40 days are allowed, after which the order must be approved or lapse. As the calculation of the period for consideration does not include any time during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days, such an order could be in force for a considerable period without any parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that I have made my point.
I believe that we are giving unprecedented powers to Ministers. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the Government, who are rightly concerned about the notion of parliamentary sovereignty, are desperately trying to erect a legal fiction to protect that notion, which is precisely that—a fiction. The course on which we are embarking is dangerous indeed.

Mr. Grieve: I find the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) extremely compelling in some ways. I have listened with care to what has been said in the debate. However, I think that we are in danger of focusing too closely on new clause 2 when considering clause 10, rather than looking at the next set of amendments, which are of equal—in my view, greater—importance, although I accept that the two groups are intimately linked.
The problem, which I hope the Home Secretary understands, and the issue we are debating is the extent to which new clause 10 is, as my hon. Friend says, merely a fig leaf to protect parliamentary sovereignty; and the extent to which there will really be a tandem movement of courts and Parliament in enforcing human rights, when, at the same time and in certain circumstances, Parliament may express a view that differs from that of the courts. The difficulty facing Opposition Members is that there is quite a lot of material to suggest that, in presenting the legislation before Parliament, and especially when it started its passage in the other place, the assumption has been made—and certainly expressed in the Lord Chancellor's speeches—that, if an incompatibility is found, there will be a rubber-stamp procedure to remedy it.
New clause 2 is concerned not with derogation, but with the odder circumstance of its being concluded that their Lordships in the Judicial Committee in the other place have come to a wrong conclusion, which would not be endorsed by the European Court of Human Rights. I confess my view that that is a somewhat unlikely state of affairs, and I should be quite content not to press new clause 2, as long as I was happy and confident on the other aspects of clause 10 that we are to debate soon.
I say to my hon. Friends that, if the Judicial Committee of the other place has ruled that there is incompatibility, it is difficult to see where the Government will get at home a contrary viewpoint to make them wish to take the matter to the European Court by the device provided for—we accept that it is a device. I suppose that one might consult learned lawyers, but one might assume, I think safely, that the learning present in the Judicial Committee would probably amount to the best advice that the Government could obtain.
There is nothing new about Governments obtaining the advice of the judiciary. Casting my mind back to what we read of the middle ages, the statute of treason, which is


one of the earliest pieces of criminal statute governing a particular matter still in existence in this country, was the result of consultation with the judges on what treason actually was. The result of that consultation was then embodied in legislation. I do not find any great difficulty in saying, "The Judicial Committee has advised, and Parliament can take it or leave it."
The anxiety that, at that point, people might say, "We believe that the European Court would come to a different conclusion," appears to me to be somewhat far fetched. At that stage, the time would have come for Parliament to bite the bullet. The anxiety is whether Parliament would feel able to do so and, if necessary, take steps that might technically amount to a derogation if the matter were challenged later in the European Court. However, that is a hypothetical question.
I think that the Home Secretary is correct when he says that, as there would be no derogation, it would be up to the Government, the House of Commons and Parliament generally to come to a conclusion based on the opinion that they had obtained from the judges.
With those remarks, I prefer to reserve my comments for the next set of amendments, which I think are crucial and bear on one of the central issues in the Bill. I would not be disposed to press the point of new clause 2, but I am grateful that it has helped us to ventilate what I consider an important issue. It would seem that it is intimately linked with the next section of the Bill that we are to consider.

Mr. Lansley: I shall raise one or two points that relate to new clause 2. The Home Secretary did something of a disservice to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier): judging from remarks that he made in an earlier debate, my hon. and learned Friend was only too aware of the fact that Governments would not be able to go to Strasbourg to try to test before the European Court of Human Rights. the issues that we are considering.
I am sure that it was contemplated by my hon. and learned Friend that the circumstances that arise under new clause 2 relate to circumstances where parties to proceedings may well wish further to seek conclusions from the European Commission or the European Court of Human Rights.
As I listened to the Home Secretary—I am often persuaded by what the right hon. Gentleman says—I took the view that, on this occasion, there was a major gap. Perhaps the Home Secretary can resolve the issue for me.
In so far as the right hon. Gentleman rested on clause 4(6), that would be the correct approach if it settled the matter in relation to all the implications of a declaration of incompatibility by a court. However, as we have heard in previous debates, the position is not quite like that. First, as I understand these matters, if a court finds that secondary legislation is incompatible, in effect it makes a declaration of incompatibility. As a consequence, that secondary legislation is quashed.
Although clause 4(6) states that the "continuing operation or enforcement" of provisions is not affected, surely that is not the case with secondary legislation, and they are directly affected.
I have a second and slightly related point to put to the Home Secretary. If a court makes a declaration of incompatibility and, as a consequence, someone seeks to sue on the basis that a public authority had acted unlawfully, might there be scope for the court to consider that declaration of incompatibility in relation to secondary legislation, and to act on the declaration and find that the public authority had acted unlawfully?
In both those circumstances, might there not be a desire among Ministers for the parties to proceedings to argue to a conclusion, including resolution through the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights, as new clause 2 contemplates? On that basis, the Home Secretary's position, while true for primary legislation, does not meet the argument, and I should be grateful for clarification.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who, I am sorry to say, has just left the Chamber, made a sweeping assertion with which I profoundly disagree. He said that he regarded the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as 100 years out of date. The doctrine is of much greater antiquity than that.

Mr. Grieve: The Home Secretary was present during many of the proceedings on Scottish devolution legislation and he will have learnt that many Scots do not recognise parliamentary sovereignty as a doctrine—which may explain the view of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—because they claim that it did not exist before the Union. The Home Secretary may agree that that also explains why the Scots Parliament has hardly a footnote in history.

Mr. Straw: I shall not be tempted on the latter point, but I shall make the chronological point that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty can certainly be traced back to 1689 and the Bill of Rights. A few years later, in 1707, Scotland and England formed a Union, which continues, and will continue after the implementation of the Scotland Bill.
My second point in response to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross relates to derogations. He said that, if there was a declaration of incompatibility by the Judicial Committee in the other place, we could derogate from that. Derogation arises only from the convention.
In addition, it is not open to member states to derogate judgment by judgment from decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It is possible to derogate only in case of war or other emergency that threatens the life of the nation. As hon. Members will see if they turn to the back of the Bill, schedule 2 sets out the one derogation that this country has made in respect of the convention, which arises from the threat of terrorism and the need for us to operate the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) suggested that clause 10 was a fig leaf, and that it gave Ministers carte blanche to amend matters. It is in no sense a fig leaf. The powers of any Minister to bring a remedial order before the House or the other place are very circumscribed.
However, as I shall spell out when we discuss the next group of amendments, we have accepted the strong views expressed in the other place and by many hon. Members


in this House about the need further to constrain the opportunity for Ministers to bring remedial orders. I accept what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said on that matter. By the way, I reassure him that, because of the rules of the Committee, we would not divide on new clause 2 before dealing with the next group of amendments.
I say to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) that the courts already have power to strike down subordinate legislation, and they do so with some regularity. If they feel that a statutory instrument has been introduced in a way that is ultra vires the primary legislation, they can do so. When we discussed the matter in detail in the Cabinet Ministerial Sub-Committee on Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, it seemed to us that, as that power was already there, it would be very odd not to continue to allow courts to strike down subordinate legislation if it was incompatible with the Bill.
9.15 pm
In a sense, that does not affect the sovereignty of Parliament, because it is open to Ministers to try to put the subordinate legislation right by simply introducing further regulations. That happens quite often, as any Minister who has held office in the Department of Social Security can testify.
The issue is whether the courts have power to strike down primary legislation, and we are clear in our minds that they should not.

Mr. Lansley: rose—

Mr. Straw: May I debate this point? Then, of course, I shall give way, but time is short, as we need to press on to the next group of amendments.
A question arises, which is dealt with under clause 4(3), in respect of a small category of inevitably incompatible subordinate legislation which cannot be quashed by the courts and can only be declared incompatible because of the nature of the primary legislation that brought about that subordinate legislation. In those cases, again to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament is not inadvertently challenged by striking down subordinate legislation and, in so doing, striking down the primary legislation, we have adopted the other approach and said that, in those cases, all the courts can do is to make a declaration of incompatibility in respect of the subordinate legislation as well.

Mr. Lansley: I accept what the Home Secretary says about primary legislation, but, in this instance, is not the question not so much about the sovereignty of Parliament as about whether it is desirable that there should be a mechanism, as in new clause 2, for the Government to suspend, as it were, the courts' quashing of secondary legislation in this respect, based on convention rights, until the interpretation of convention rights has proceeded all the way through to the European Court of Human Rights, where the Government consider that to be desirable?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry; I do not accept that. We might equally take the example of social security, but let us take the prison rules as an example.
The prison rules are subordinate legislation, which I change from time to time, under the powers given me under the prison Acts. If they were struck down for incompatibility with the convention, the important thing would be to introduce new prison rules that were compatible with the legislation, not to leave a hole in the provision.
On the other hand, if the prison Acts were declared incompatible, it would be a much more serious matter, and the important thing would be for the Government and Parliament to make a judgment about whether to take action in respect of that declaration. We have dealt with that.
I invited the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to withdraw his amendments, but I need not have done so, because I now invite the Committee to approve amendment No. 62, which we accept. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will stay silent and not press amendment No. 63 to a vote, or even move it.

Mr. Garnier: I shall not stay silent, for one reason only: because I want to thank the Home Secretary for surprising me by accepting our amendment No. 62. It is something of a record, certainly in the context of the Bill, if not in the context of legislation introduced by the Government since May 1997.
I shall not mention the points raised by my hon. Friends, because the Home Secretary has responded to a number of them. I thank them for their contributions, because, as we all agree, we have discussed a particularly important area of the Bill. I suspect that the debate will not go away. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke to the next group of amendments during this debate is not a criticism; he has highlighted an especially important constitutional problem.
In respect of my amendments, I wonder whether you, Mr. Lord, would remind me of where I am procedurally.

The Second Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with amendment No. 62. For the time being, that is all that we have to deal with.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 33 to 45 and insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State shall, within 15 sitting days, lay before each House of Parliament a statement setting out the grounds of the incompatibility and each House of Parliament shall—

(a) in the case of a declaration of incompatibility under section 4, by resolution signify its agreement or disagreement with the declaration;
(b) in any other case, debate the statement.

(3) If either House of Parliament by resolution under subsection (2)(a) signifies its disagreement with a declaration of incompatibility, the case in relation to which the declaration was made shall stand in abeyance, save for any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
(3A) If both Houses of Parliament by resolution under subsection (2)(a) signify their agreement with a declaration of incompatibility, or when both Houses have debated a statement under subsection (2)(b), as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report containing proposals for amending legislation to remedy the incompatibility.


(3B) In any case where it is necessary to amend primary legislation in order to remedy the incompatibility, amending legislation shall take the form of an Act of Parliament unless the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional reasons which make it impracticable to proceed by Act of Parliament; and in that case he shall state those reasons in the report, and may by order make such amendments to the primary legislation as he considers appropriate.
(3C) An order under subsection (3B) above shall not be made until a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 144 to 146.
No. 36, in page 7, line 45, at end insert—
'(3A) Any amendment to legislation, whether primary or subordinate, shall be no more extensive than is required to reverse the specific incompatibility specified by the declaration of incompatibility specified by the declaration of the court made under section 4 or the specific finding of the European Court of Human Rights.'.
Government amendment No. 147.
No. 65, in page 8, line 1, leave out 'conferred by subsection (2)' and insert
`to make amending legislation by order'.
Government amendment No. 131.
No. 66, in page 8, line 6, leave out '(2) or (3)' and insert '(3B)'.
Government amendment No. 132.
No. 67, in clause 11, page 8, line 13, after 'contain', insert 'only'.
No. 68, in clause 11, page 8, line 16, at end insert
`but shall not have effect earlier than the date on which the proceedings which led to the declaration of incompatibility or the quashing or declaring invalid of subordinate legislation commenced'.
No. 69, in clause 11, page 8, leave out line 17.
Clause 11 stand part.
No. 72, in clause 12, page 9, line 4, leave out '(a) in subsection (1)'.
No. 73, in clause 12, page 9, line 5, leave out from `laid' to end of line 7 and insert
`or the order was made, as the case may be'.
No. 74, in clause 12, page 9, line 7, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations, and in particular to any report of a Committee of either House of Parliament, that may be made during the period of consideration relating to a remedial order or draft, and may, if he considers it desirable in the light of any such report or representation, lay a revised draft or make a new order as the case may be.
(4B) At the end of the period of consideration the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement giving details of any representations made relating to the remedial order or draft and his response to those representations.'.
No. 78, in clause 12, page 9, line 7, at end insert
`and—
(c) a statement that the order is no more extensive than is required to reverse the specific incompatibility identified in the declaration of incompatibility made by the court or in the relevant finding of the European Court of Human Rights.'.

Clause 12 stand part.
Government new schedule 3.

Mr. Garnier: Thank you, Mr. Lord; here I am again.
We come to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), has described as the most important debate of the evening. It is certainly of equal importance to the previous debate; indeed, it is vital. I mean no disrespect to anyone when I say that we have a rag-bag of amendments before us, but important points need to be discussed. I fear that the Home Secretary may be detained a little longer. None the less, I am grateful to him for doing us the courtesy of joining us at this stage of the Committee.
Amendment No. 64 states:
`(2) The Secretary of State shall, within 15 sitting days, lay before each House of Parliament a statement setting out the grounds of the incompatibility and each House of Parliament shall—

(a) in the case of a declaration of incompatibility under section 4, by resolution signify its agreement or disagreement with the declaration;
(b) in any other case, debate the statement.

(3) If either House of Parliament by resolution under subsection (2)(a) signifies its disagreement with a declaration of incompatibility, the case in relation to which the declaration was made shall stand in abeyance, save for any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
(3A) If both Houses of Parliament by resolution under subsection (2)(a) signify their agreement with a declaration of incompatibility, or when both Houses have debated a statement under subsection (2)(b), as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report containing proposals for amending legislation to remedy the incompatibility.
(3B) In any case where it is necessary to amend primary legislation in order to remedy the incompatibility, amending legislation shall take the form of an Act of Parliament unless the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional reasons which make it impracticable to proceed by Act of Parliament; and in that case he shall state those reasons in the report, and may by order make such amendments to the primary legislation as he considers appropriate.
(3C) An order under subsection (3B) above shall not be made until a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
The amendment is altogether better than that which is set out in the Government's new schedule 3, but I shall come back to its wording in a moment.
The amendments and the new clause are all concerned with what we can simply call the fast-track procedure. If the UK's domestic courts or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg declares that primary or secondary legislation is incompatible with the convention, the Government may change the law simply by laying an order before Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. We oppose that in principle—it is both unnecessary and unjustified. There have been only 11 occasions in the 32 years since the UK gave right of individual petition to bring cases to Strasbourg when it has been necessary to introduce primary legislation to change our law as a result of an adverse ruling.
The Lord Chancellor has stressed that such cases are likely to be rare, and that therefore there is no practical justification for the power. Even more importantly, it is wrong in principle. Our laws on human rights issues should be created and crafted by Parliament, with proper opportunity to debate and amend. Our laws are not to be


made by the courts or simply by the Government of the day through statutory instrument. To allow the fast-track procedure is to diminish the role of Parliament and to weaken our democracy. This is not just the appearance of a fig leaf, but no fig leaf at all, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was right to draw our attention to that danger.
In amendment No. 144 and new schedule 3, the Government appear to recognise that there is some force in our criticism. Indeed, if the Home Secretary did not expressly say so, he at least implied that during a response to a recent intervention. The Government now propose a revised scheme under which the fast-track procedure will be used only if there are compelling reasons. Our amendment No. 64 proposes that any changes in the law should be by primary legislation,
unless the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional reasons which make it impracticable to proceed by Act of Parliament; and in that case he shall state those reasons in the report".
That is much preferable, because it is an objective criterion, not the purely subjective test proposed by the Home Secretary. After all, it is the Secretary of State, and he alone, who decides what are compelling reasons. It may simply be that he wishes to avoid any debate on what he knows is a contentious matter. If he replies that he would never use his powers in such a way, the proper course must be not to grant such powers in the first place. The common sense of that is inescapable.
New schedule 3 does not give us confidence that the very wide powers will not be abused. Paragraph 1(1)(a) shows how wide a remedial order can go. I shall return to that matter in more detail later. Such an order cannot merely remedy the incompatibility declared by the court and make incidental or consequential changes, which would be reasonable, but can make any supplemental provisions that the person making the order considers appropriate.
Paragraph 1(2) includes the power to amend, revoke or repeal primary or secondary legislation
other than that which contains the incompatible provision".
In other words, smuggled into the new schedule—which will be presented as a generous, emollient gesture—is a Henry VIII clause of the widest proportions. I shall come back to that point in a moment.
Save in genuinely exceptional circumstances, for which the Opposition have responsibly provided, this fast-track procedure is wrong and should be expunged from the Bill. Such objections are not new to discussions about the Bill. At the outset, on Second Reading in the upper House, my noble Friend Lord Kingsland pointed out that the Bill—especially the provisions on the fast track—was a defining moment in our constitution.
9.30 pm
In Committee on 3 June, when we were discussing earlier clauses, I referred to a number of collision points highlighted by the Bill. I was concerned about the collision between the courts and Parliament represented by clause 4, under which certain courts can make declarations of incompatibility. We are facing another collision in clause 10, but this time it is between the Executive and Parliament.
My noble Friend Lord Kingsland put the point far more exactly and elegantly on Second Reading in the other place on 3 November 1997. He said that the Bill was a

defining moment in the life of our constitution and as important in the history of our constitution, as the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. He said that these matters
lie at the heart of the doctrine of the separation of powers in our constitution, which has been the hallmark of our liberties throughout the centuries."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1235.]
I was perhaps not shocked, but none the less perturbed, when the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was 100 years out of date. That merely shows that the Liberal Democrats are even more out of touch with the popular will that I thought, but I digress. There is much that the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Straw: He is not a Privy Councillor.

Mr. Garnier: Yes, he is. I think that the Labour Government made him one some time ago.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross should not be the butt of too much criticism, because he was helpful to the official Opposition at the outset of our deliberations when we discussed access to the courts.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is sorry that he cannot be present. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Liberal Democrats have argued from first principles about what we should be seeking to achieve in the Bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have come late to the principles of the Bill. Perhaps that explains why he has fundamentally misunderstood the point that my right hon. Friend put to the House.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must keep to the amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman has strayed from the amendment, as did the hon. Gentleman in his intervention. The debate is subject to a programme motion, so it is important that we keep to the amendments before us and not go any wider.

Mr. Garnier: I am glad that you intervened, Mr. Martin, because you have saved me from saying something that I might later regret.
For his part, the Lord Chancellor did not refer to clauses 10 and 12 in his opening speech on Second Reading in the other place. He said that the Bill is carefully drafted, and designed to respect our traditional understanding of the separation of powers.
It is significant that a Bill that was apparently so carefully drafted is now to be amended, if the Committee agrees, by the same Government who praised its original terms to take account, if only marginally, of our concerns. A comparative study of amendment No. 64 and those that flow from it, and Government amendment No. 144 and new schedule 3 tells a worrying story.
I shall not deal with amendments Nos. 64, 36 and 74 because I want to demonstrate, as quickly as I can, the problems in new schedule 3. I accept that the


arithmetic of this Parliament means that new schedule 3 is most likely to find its way into the Bill in due course, so it is on that that I should concentrate.
Paragraph 1(1) of new schedule 3 states:
A remedial order may—
(a) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate".
We all know that the person making it will be a Minister. Contained within the first three lines of new schedule 3 are extraordinarily extended powers to make legislation by secondary legislation.
Sub-paragraph (1) continues:
(b) be made so as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which it is made".
Therefore, it will be not only widely configured but antecedent. The sub-paragraph continues:
(c) make provision for the delegation of specific functions".
The Minister is not only amending primary legislation by secondary legislation, not only amending the primary legislation which has been held to be incompatible, but will be able to delegate the making of provisions for other specific functions. Sub-paragraph (1) concludes:
(d) make different provision for different cases".
Sub-paragraph (2) states:
The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(a) includes—

Mr. Leigh: I hope that, before my hon. and learned Friend sits down, he will refer to the even more worrying point that we are concerned not simply about the amending of primary legislation by secondary legislation, but about the fact that these matters will not be amended and will be debated for only 90 minutes, and, because of the Bill's timetabling, matters which could have been debated under clause 20 will not be debated. As the Bill passes into law, Parliament will not debate this critical change in our constitution. We shall not even reach clause 20 tonight.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and that is why I am trying to make some progress. We are reaching a part of the Bill which should make our hair stand on end.
Sub-paragraph (2) continues:
(a) power to amend or repeal primary legislation (including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision); and
(b) power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation (including subordinate legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision).
The only good thing that I can find here is sub-paragraph (3), which states:
No person is to be guilty of an offence solely as a result of the retrospective effect of a remedial order.
That is very nice. But already, the first paragraph of new schedule 3 gives a Minister immense powers to deal with existing primary legislation and secondary legislation, and it is extremely doubtful whether it is proper for a Minister to take unto himself such powers.
Paragraph 2 states:
No remedial order may be made unless—

(a) a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House".
No doubt the Government will say that that is a benefit for Parliament, because it will be able to deal with this at the end of 60 days. Secondly, no remedial order may be made unless
it is declared in the order that it appears to the person making it that, because of the urgency of the matter, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so approved.
Again, the Minister can take unto himself powers which should be carefully considered.
Paragraph (3) deals with orders laid in draft. Sub-paragraph (2) states:
If representations have been made during that period"—
the 60—day period
the draft laid under paragraph 2(a) must be accompanied by a statement containing—

(a) a summary of the representations; and
(b) if, as a result of the representations, the proposed order has been changed, details of the changes."

The problem with that provision is that it does not say that the Minister "shall have regard" to the representations or opinion of any Committee—as our own amendment No. 74 would clearly require—but merely says that he shall summarise the representations. It does not say that he should ensure that the representations are placed before Parliament, verbatim. We all know that one of the best ways of dealing with inconvenient matters is to summarise them in a manner that suits one's own argument. Who will draft the summary, and why is the Minister not required to have full regard to the representations?
The same fault can be found in clause 4, which mentions the "summary of the representations", and allows the Minister,
if, as a result of the representations, he considers it appropriate to make changes to the original order",
to put into his statement details of the changes. The power to edit is one that editors are loth to give up. I dare say that the power to edit and to summarise given to Ministers by the new schedule is one that they will jealously guard, to the disadvantage of the parliamentary process.
I hope that, in those few observations on new schedule 3, I have persuaded the Committee that the new schedule is not what the Government undoubtedly will say it is—a meeting halfway between our concerns and their intention—but constitutes something else entirely. I suggest that the new schedule is not so much a Henry VIII clause—at the behest of Cardinal Wolsey—as a provision that would allow Ministers a huge extension of power to alter, repeal and redraft primary and secondary legislation connected directly not only with a clause 4 declaration of incompatibility but with further primary and secondary measures.
From now on, the expression "Henry VIII clause" will be inadequate to describe the Government's action. I suggest that, henceforth, new schedule 3 should be regarded as the birth of the Henry XVI clause. Constitutionally, new schedule 3 stinks.

Mr. Straw: In an earlier speech, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) spoke of the risks of hyperbole. Those risks were well evidenced in his most recent remarks. It is very unconvincing for Opposition


Members to work themselves into a lather over Henry VIII clauses unless that lather is preceded by an admission of guilt—a mea culpa—for introducing such clauses into legislation—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) seems to accept that point. I simply remind the Committee that he was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry from 1990 to 1993, during which time the previous Administration introduced the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, with far fewer protections and safeguards against arbitrary use of subordinate legislation in overturning primary legislation than was ever contemplated in the first draft of the Human Rights Bill.
I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough was uncharacteristically lacking in generosity in chiding the Government and me for—he said sarcastically—introducing a Bill that is so well drafted that it now has to be amended. In almost the same breath, he chided us for being reluctant to accept amendments tabled by the Opposition. I do subscribe to the view that Ministers are subordinate and subject to the will of the House. We did our best—and so did parliamentary counsel—with the drafting of the Bill, but it would be impertinent for any Minister to suggest that it was absolutely perfect.
It is our duty to listen to debates and, where we think that an argument has been made, to acknowledge it and to table amendments. For the record, I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government's acceptance of the exquisitely drafted amendment No. 62 is by no means the only occasion on which my Department has accepted Opposition amendments. Sometimes they are not quite in proper order, so we ask parliamentary counsel to put them in order. Two of the amendments that we made to the Crime and Disorder Bill on Monday, as I acknowledged, were only to put in order amendments that had been tabled by the official Opposition.
9.45 pm
I now turn to the issues that have been raised. I shall not go over the crucial concept of declarations of incompatibility that exist to recognise the sovereignty of Parliament. Most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee accept that and demur from the view of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
Having decided on the concept of declarations of incompatibility, we had to determine what procedures to put in place where such a declaration was made. One option available to Government and Parliament is simply to ignore the declaration of incompatibility, and we have discussed the possibilities that can arise in such a circumstance when no action is taken. However, in most cases when there is a declaration of incompatibility, any Government who are committed to promoting human rights will want to do something about that part of the law that the Judicial Committee in another place has declared outwith the convention.
It is certainly possible for primary legislation to be introduced and passed very quickly in certain circumstances, and the previous Government had an honourable record of introducing the necessary legislation to give proper effect to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Successive Governments have

always acknowledged that it is their duty to bring into law—and into effect—judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
Opposition Members who have served in previous Parliaments have experience of the pressures on the legislative timetable that sometimes mean that it is not always possible to bring legislation into force timeously. The power to make a remedial order exists for cases—we do not think that there will be very many—when there is a very good reason to amend the law following a declaration of incompatibility or a finding by the Strasbourg court, but no suitable legislative vehicle is available.
Let me give an example that shows why the hyperbole by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough was quite out of place. A declaration of incompatibility might arise where the legislation in question had touched on the liberty of the subject. In most cases, the Judicial Committee in another place has said that primary legislation here is outwith the convention because it has taken the view that the rights of the subject spelled out in the convention have been unjustifiably interfered with by the primary legislation of this Parliament. Therefore, a remedial order aims to restore, or to give to the subject for the first time, liberties that the subject had previously been denied by Parliament.
In those cases, I believe that Parliament would wish to act swiftly, but it could well be that there was no criminal justice Bill before the House through which amendments could be made. In those circumstances, the power to make specific and necessary amendments by means of a remedial order could be useful.
We have to finish all our debates by 10 minutes past 10, so I shall not detain the Committee for much longer; but I should like to refer to the case of Mr. Chahal, in which the European Court declared that the arbitrary powers of the Home Secretary to deport an individual on the ground that his presence here was not conducive to the public good was not acceptable, and that there had to be a judicial element in the decision. Primary legislation has now been passed, but, because of the time that it took, individuals were left in limbo with no proper procedure for making decisions on whether people could be deported. Mr. Chahal was released, but in other circumstances such an individual would have to continue to be detained, perhaps for many months or a year, before primary legislation was passed. That is not acceptable, and a remedial order would be right for such a case.
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will acknowledge our good faith. I have listened with great care to the arguments. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who used to sit for Grantham and now has an unmemorable and lengthy constituency—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Sleaford and North Hykeham."] Sleaford and South Hykeham. [HON. MEMBERS: "North Hykeham."] It makes no difference to me whether it is North, South, East or West Hykeham. He and others made some important points on Second Reading, which I wanted to take on board. Our amendments and new schedule 3 constrain the circumstances in which remedial orders can be brought forward.
We are deleting the word "appropriate" in clause 10, and saying that a remedial order can be brought forward only if there are compelling reasons. We are setting a very


high test. Only the changes necessary to remove the incompatibility will be possible. We have also made provision for representations to be made about non-urgent orders. The appropriate Minister will have to bring before Parliament a clear statement of those representations and whether they have been accepted, with a provision for amending the original remedial order if appropriate.
Under amendment No. 64, if Parliament signified that it did not agree with a declaration of incompatibility made by the domestic courts, the case in relation to which the declaration was made would
stand in abeyance, save for any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
As a declaration of incompatibility has no effect on the proceedings in which it is made, the provision would serve no purpose other than to stay the proceedings.
The amendment does not refer to only that part of the case in respect of which a declaration of incompatibility is made. Several points could be raised on the matter that went before the other place, some of which required relief, and for which relief should and would be forthcoming from a domestic court but for the operation of amendment No. 64. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough had that in mind, but the perverse effect of the amendment would be to stay the whole case, and therefore to stay the relief that would otherwise be available. For that reason, as for many others, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will not press his amendment.
We have worked carefully on the amendments. I accept that they do not deal with all the concerns raised about remedial orders, but I suggest that we have listened with great care to those concerns and have sought to meet them as far as possible.

Mr. Grieve: I shall try to be brief. I should have liked to have longer, but I appreciate the time constraints, and I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
Leaving aside any party issues—the Home Secretary knows well enough my views on the thrust of the legislation—I believe that this is the key issue. It is perhaps also my cop-out clause. Given the views I take on this matter, and although I do not know exactly what will happen on Third Reading, if the legislation is acceptable to me in relation to what we call the Henry VIII clause, I would find myself delicately situated—if the matter were to be remedied to my satisfaction—were I not to support the Government. I say that frankly to the Home Secretary. I can see the Whip giving me a slightly baleful look, but I have been given an immense margin of appreciation in this matter by my own party, for which I am grateful.
As a general principle, it seems quite clear—the Home Secretary seems to accept it—that any declaration of incompatibility, as it is not binding on the House, should be followed by full consideration of any legislation by the House in the ordinary way. There are compelling reasons for that. If I had more time, I would touch on the Lord Chancellor's speech in the other place on 3 November. 1 found his approach to the way in which Parliament would react to such a declaration of incompatibility quite chilling. He seemed to be adopting the mantle of the advocate rather than of the judge. He seemed to imply that Parliament would automatically wish to follow the direction set by the judiciary.
Although I support the Bill because I wish to see the human rights convention incorporated in legislation in this country—that is an important matter–1 also consider it exceptionally important to accept that Parliament may have good and compelling reasons not to want to follow the lead or the advice provided by the judiciary. That is our undoubted right. If our right to scrutinise legislation fully is not allowed for, we risk earning in the contentious matters that arise—I hope rarely—the opprobrium of our electorate, who would not understand why we were adopting a certain course.
The process by which legislation goes through the House is laborious, but one of the happy things that I have discovered during my 12 months here is that, as legislation is discussed in Committee and on Report, many of the initial issues and differences start to be ironed out. Public acceptance of legislation becomes greater precisely because it has been fully discussed. The danger of the rubber-stamp principle is that public acceptance is not obtained, and full discussion does not take place. As we know, even from today's proceedings, there are many occasions when amendments tabled by other parties, or even by the Government, improve the legislation.
The question at the root of all this is: given that I adhere to that principle, can there ever be exceptions? In fairness to my hon. Friends, it is clear from the Opposition amendment that it has been accepted that there may be such exceptions. If that was not the case, the amendment would not have made any reference to them.
There may be occasions when it becomes so clear that steps have to be taken quickly that a remedial order might be the appropriate way to proceed. However, the use of the word "compelling", worries me a little. I would prefer "exceptional" and I should be interested to hear at some point in this debate what the Home Secretary understands by "compelling" and how he would differentiate from it "exceptional", Although there may appear to be only a small difference between them, one may exist. I understand "exceptional" to mean something very pressing, which would command wide public acceptance.

Mr. Straw: I am answering ad lib and without the benefit of a legal dictionary, but the situation that I described in the Chahal case, where the liberty of a subject would be adversely affected by a delay in producing primary legislation, was a compelling case. I am not certain that it would be an exceptional case, because one could ask, "To what is it exceptional?" but it would certainly be a compelling case. Frankly, only in that situation would remedial orders be necessary and appropriate.

10 pm

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. Even if the matter has to be reopened on some subsequent occasion, I shall now conclude by saying, as he has acknowledged, that there have been occasions—I remember one last autumn—when we have passed legislation through all its stages in the House in two and a half hours. True, the legislation in one of those instances referred to the Lord Chancellor's Department and the noble Lord's desire to have a permanent secretary who was not a lawyer, or whose qualifications were not with reference to some previous statute, but it was done. If it is widely accepted that something should be done, the House can do


it, and has done so before. If there is not that widespread agreement, that is the compelling reason why the matter should be debated and discussed in full by the ordinary procedure.
I await the Home Secretary's response. In an ideal world, I would prefer that there should be no exceptional or compelling reasons with respect to an appropriate course or action. Granted that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough has accepted that such an exception might exist, it needs to be defined; or we will have a fig leaf and not the reality that I want—the House and the judiciary co-operating to bring about the human rights set out in the Bill and discussing them frequently as and when matters arise in which there are incompatibilities or difficulties, so that the public can be aware of how the legislation works and of its limitations.

Mr. Lansley: I shall confine myself to two points. First, when the Home Secretary looked at the report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which suggested that there should be something akin to the procedure used in 1994 on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill for considering those powers, did he conclude that there should be such a procedure? It is not in new schedule 3, and it should be.
Secondly, the Home Secretary, ad lib, talked about the word "compelling" and not using the word "exceptional". Amendment No. 64 uses "exceptional". Might I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Competition Bill, in which the words "exceptional and compelling" are used? The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, said of that power:
We have no plans to exercise that power, and we believe that its exercise should be subject to the high test of 'exceptional and compelling' reasons.
Later, he continued:
We are genuinely trying to ensure that a serious test is applied to the Secretary of State's actions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 9 June 1998; c. 296-97.]
If an exceptional and compelling test is the appropriate high test in that Bill, why is it not the test that should be used in relation to the exceptional and unusual power in this Bill?

Mr. Straw: In view of the time, I shall be very brief.
I accept the gravamen of what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said. It is plainly more desirable for changes in respect of a declaration of incompatibility to be effected by primary legislation—there is no argument across the Chamber about that. There will be circumstances in which a speedier process is necessary—we should not have brought forward this power if we did not think so—but those circumstances will be limited and constrained.
I also accept that Parliament and the judiciary must engage in a serious dialogue about the operation and development of the rights in the Bill. I am sure that the Bill will develop, perhaps, as Machiavelli instructed us—and as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) reminded us—in ways that we do not fully anticipate. That dialogue is the only way in which we can ensure that the legislation is a living development that assists our citizens.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) asked me two questions. First, he asked why we are not following the phraseology suggested by

my colleagues dealing with the Competition Bill. I confess that I am not familiar with the last dot and comma of that Bill, but I gather that it contains a reference to exceptional and compelling circumstances. The hon. Gentleman gives the answer: he says that Ministers on the Standing Committee dealing with that Bill said that they had no plans to exercise the power. That raises the question why it is there, but I have no doubt that I shall receive an answer to that from my colleagues in Victoria street in the morning.
There can be dubiety about this—of course we anticipate circumstances in which the power in this Bill will be exercised; otherwise, there would not be much point in bringing it forward. I remind hon. Members who were in the House before the general election of the great discussion about the use of the word "exceptional" in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997—the word has a particular meaning, and I think that "compelling" is better.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also asked about the Deregulation Committee. We took account of its recommendations, which is one reason—I should have explained this before—why we tabled new schedule 3.

Mr. Garnier: I shall be very brief, in view of the hour. I want first to thank all my hon. Friends who have contributed to the debates this evening. I have found them of great assistance, as I have both the Under-Secretary of State and the Home Secretary, who have, as is their usual custom, been polite, kind and helpful. I am sorry that we were unable to agree on everything, but politics is a rough old business. Machiavelli and Rab Butler were different, but they both understood that politics was the art of the possible, and, right now, I can see that it is does not look possible that we shall win a vote on the amendment. Rashly anticipating the result of a Division, I shall beg to ask leave to withdraw—

Mr. Leigh: Before my hon. and learned Friend does so, will he say whether he agrees that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made an important point? The Home Secretary ribbed us about what the Conservatives did in the Department of Trade and Industry over deregulation, but he did not properly answer my hon. Friend's question. The work of the Deregulation Committee is an important safeguard, and I am not sure that the Bill will provide for anything similar.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is right. I was not wanting to skate past what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said; I was worried about the time. There will be other occasions when we shall have a chance to debate that matter—one of the reasons why we are seeking leave to withdraw the amendment is to allow for that very possibility.
In that light, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 144, in page 7, line 33, leave out from 'that' to end of line 36 and insert
`there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility.'.

No. 145, in page 7, line 42, leave out from 'that' to end of line 43 and insert
`there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section,'.

No. 146, in page 7, line 45, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'necessary'.

No. 147, in page 8, line 1, leave out from beginning to `where' and insert—
`(4) This section also applies'.

No. 131, in page 8, line 4, leave out 'section 12(1)(b)' and insert
`paragraph 2(b) of Schedule (Remedial orders)'.

No. 132, in page 8, line 11, at end insert—
`( ) Schedule (Remedial orders) makes further provision about remedial orders.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 disagreed to.

It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Orders [1 and 17 June and today], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 12 disagreed to.

Clauses 13 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

INTERPRETATION, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 133, in page 13, line 19, after `made' insert
`(other than by the National Assembly for Wales or a member of the Scottish Executive)'.

No. 134, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—
`(aa) Act of the Scottish Parliament;'.

No. 135, in page 13, line 40, leave out 'paragraphs' and insert 'paragraph (aa),'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, APPLICATION AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 136, in page 14, leave out lines 23 to 26.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

PETITION

Pylons (Vale of York)

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to present a petition signed by hundreds, with more signatures to come, on behalf of my constituents in Vale of York, demonstrating continuing strength of feeling and revulsion against proposed pylons. The petition states:
The Petition of the Residents of the Vale of York Constituency declares that we are concerned about the decision to allow electricity pylons to be erected down the constituency.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of State for Energy to reconsider this decision, and to prevent the blight of thousands of homes by the erection of these pylons.
As I am sure the House will appreciate, property prices will be blighted, but the owners will not be eligible for the same level of compensation that would have been awarded on a voluntary basis.

To lie upon the table.

Orders of the Day — Coastal Erosion

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Coastal erosion has been the subject of two Adjournment debates in the past two years. Neither made the important distinction between urban and rural coastlines. I hope this evening to correct that.
Approximately 8,000 sq km of land in England and Wales lies within 5 m of present sea levels. According to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, by the year 2050, sea levels will have risen by about 50 cm. Erosion rates vary across the country. For example, there is rapid erosion along parts of the coast of the east and southern parts of England, where relatively soft geographical formations are found.
Surveys are few, but surveys of the salt marshes along the north Kent and Essex costs were carried out in 1973 and 1988 to assess the loss of this habitat to factors other than development. They found that, over 15 years, between 10 and 40 per cent. of the salt marsh area had been lost in each surveyed estuary because of coastal erosion and land claim.
In 1994, the Conservative Government published the UK's first sustainable development strategy, in line with the commitments made at the Rio Earth summit in 1992. It referred to coastal erosion, and emphasised the need to promote the sustainable use of the coast so that it reflected its human uses as well as nature conservation. The previous Government rightly pointed out that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence. Coastlines recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide, so it is unrealistic to expect to maintain every inch of coastline as it is today.
The previous Government's advice to local authorities was to look to a range of options, and consider the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast so as to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences. That goes to the heart of the point that I want to make tonight—that Government funding is inadequate for that task. I shall return to that shortly. The present Government are consulting on plans for a revised strategy. The consultation paper has a section on freshwater and coastal waters, but concentrates on water quality. Coastal erosion does not appear to get a mention. Perhaps the Minister could reassure me about that.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has policy responsibility in England for flood defence and coastal protection. Its published policy objective is to reduce the risk to people and to the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion, by encouraging the provision of sustainable defence measures. It makes grant-in-aid funding available to local operating authorities for between 15 and 85 per cent. of the value of individual capital projects to provide sound and sustainable flood and coastal defences, as well as warning systems. In total, MAFF accounts for some 50 per cent. of the total capital expenditure annually. The rest is met by local authorities, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency.
According to research by the Library, coastal defence schemes conducted by maritime district councils or unitary authorities under the Coast Protection Act 1949 receive a grant of 35 to 75 per cent. Flood defence works conducted by district councils or internal drainage boards under the Land Drainage Act 1991 attract flat rate grants of 25 per cent. for works on rivers, while works on tidal waters attract a further grant of 20 per cent.
Flood defence works conducted by the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991 attract different rates of grant, depending on region. Grants for rivers vary from 15 to 65 per cent. and for tidal waters from 35 to 85 per cent. However, limits are placed on all three types of grant.
Global warming has changed weather patterns, raised sea levels, and increased the ferocity of storms, rendering some old sea defences useless. As a result, coastal erosion threatens towns, villages and industry, as well as natural wetlands. King Canute famously thought that he could withstand the sea. At the time, he was wrong, but nowadays we can take measures to hold back the sea where necessary. However, the message to local authorities from Governments past and present appears to be adopt the King Canute approach, and will the tide to turn. Adequate funds in the right places are the missing element.
I accept the argument that we cannot protect the whole coastline, but a distinction needs to be drawn between rural and urban coastline. That is partially accepted by the Ministry in its application for funding for flood defence and coast protection, where urban areas get a higher score than rural areas in terms of the type of project proposed. However, they may lose if other scoring factors, such as cost benefit or standard of defence, are too low.
I question whether the administration of such grants should not be a DETR function, rather than one of MAFF, as the responsible bodies tasked with preventing coastal erosion are local authorities, most of which—especially those in urban areas—have little or no contact with MAFF but are in regular communication with the DETR.
My own local authority, the unitary authority of Torbay, has 22 miles of coastline, consisting of the three towns of Torquay, Paignton and Brixham, which are rightly described as the English Riviera; 127,000 people live in Torbay, which is the second largest urban conurbation in the far south-west; and tourism is one of the main sources of employment. Like the majority of local authorities, Torbay is unable to make a contingency provision in its budget sufficient to meet the costs of severe storm damage. When faced with a bill for coastal erosion, as it was last year when the severe winter storms destroyed an access way to Redgate beach and left sections of the cliff face to the rear of that popular beach in an unstable condition, the authority has few options available.
The cost of repairs in that instance was estimated to be £350,000. The standard spending assessment for coast protection in Torbay is £14,000, and its basic credit approval for capital expenditure for the current year totalled –140,000. The council had to conclude that it could not forgo any of its committed capital schemes or find savings of that amount from its already over-committed revenue budget, so it had no option but to close the beach area to the public. It is somewhat ironic that, if the council were able to fund the coast protection


works this year, under the current arrangements it could expect the cost to be reflected in the standard spending assessment settlement for next year and the year after.
That is one example of several important elements in the coastal tourism infrastructure, which is under serious threat from erosion not only in my constituency, but throughout the country. Faced with the changes to the standard spending assessment formula in respect of visitor nights, which move money away from coastal resorts, the prospect of funding repairs and maintenance to redress coastal erosion is ever diminishing. I apologise to the Minister for the time I have spent on the subject of local government finance, but that emphasises the point that perhaps such matters should be a function of the DETR, not MAFF.
I am also concerned that funds tend to be made available only for protecting the coastline in emergencies, not for the on-going daily problems of coastal erosion. The Bellwin scheme provides special financial assistance to those local authorities which, as a consequence of an emergency, would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities. As well as having responsibility for preventing erosion, local authorities have a statutory responsibility to deal with emergencies, yet there is no automatic entitlement under Bellwin to special financial assistance from central Government. The Bellwin scheme is discretionary.
Of course, many other communities are situated on the nation's coastline. The chairman of the north-east coastal authorities group, Mr. Riby, is also principal engineer for Scarborough council. He was quoted in The Northern Echo in May this year as saying, in reference to the amount of Government cash available:
Scarborough Council alone could spend the annual allocation.
The Minister will recall that it was on that coastline that Holbeck Hall hotel tumbled into the sea, while the television cameras buzzed away and the world's media watched.
My point is that central Government should give greater day-to-day support to those areas which have communities by coastlines under threat from erosion. That should be reflected in the coastline element of the local authority grant formula, and it should be significantly greater for urban areas. Finally, the Bellwin scheme, or an alternative, should be available to assist local authorities with the cost of repairing coastline damaged by normal wear and tear, rather than by exceptional conditions.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this Adjournment debate this evening. I look forward to the Minister's response.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on the succinct way in which he set out his concerns. He made his case very well on behalf of his constituents. I am responding as the Minister with responsibility for flood and coastal defence policy.
The hon. Gentleman showed a great deal of knowledge about funding and structure, and the way in which they operate within government. He said that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should take the lead on flood defence matters. I am not a Minister who is subject to departmentalitis; what is important is efficient and effective delivery. If there are other options, they should be properly considered.
Many flood defence and drainage issues are landuse issues. Much depends on co-operation with internal drainage boards, which are closely related to agriculture and coastal areas. In terms of land-use policy, there is a strong argument for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food having responsibility for those issues. However, there is a debate on that, and the Select Committee on Agriculture is currently reviewing all the various options.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concerns about coastal erosion and the loss of land and property. I understand those concerns. It is an emotive subject; coastal erosion can cause a great deal of damage and distress, not only in economic terms, to those who live in affected areas.
Natural events such as coastal erosion can never be entirely prevented. It is obviously right that public authorities that have the power to do so take whatever measures they can to alleviate the risk that people face.
The Ministry is responsible for the planning, design, the construction, maintenance and operation of defence measures, but those responsibilities are carried out by a number of operating authorities, including local authorities. Responsibility for protection of the land against erosion or encroachment by the sea rests with maritime district councils. As the hon. Gentleman said, that would be his local council.
Over the past decade, the Ministry has been developing an integrated and strategic approach to sea defence and coast protection. In 1993, it published a strategy for coastal defence, which set out a comprehensive framework within which the Government and the operating authorities can work. In particular, the strategy advocates that defence measures should be based on an understanding of natural processes, and, as far as possible, should work with those processes.
It is for operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, to assess what measures are needed to reduce flooding and coastal erosion in their areas, and to come forward with plans for dealing with it that are cost-effective and sound in engineering and environmental terms.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the urban and rural divide in relation to flood and coastal defence. I find it ironic that, when I go as a Minister to rural areas, it is said that I am giving far too much attention to urban areas in relation to flood defence. I am now being told that I am paying far too much attention to rural areas.
It may reassure the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that funding for flood defence is based on a scoring system, and that we apply exactly the same criteria, whether it is a rural area or an urban area. I think that he will understand that the criteria are based on priority and need in relation to capital allocation.
As part of that approach, the Ministry has promoted the establishment of coastal defence groups, which provide a forum for discussion and co-operation. They help to


ensure that processes such as erosion that are occurring on particular stretches of coast are taken into account. To assist the groups in the strategic management of discrete stretches of coast, such as the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, the Ministry has encouraged the preparation of shoreline management plans. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's local council will have been involved in the preparation of such plans. The Ministry has issued guidance on their preparation. The aim of the plans is to provide a basis for sustainable coastal defence policies and set objectives for the future management of the coastline, taking into account natural coastal processes and coastal defence needs, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
Plans should be the subject of wide consultation with all bodies with an interest in the coastline, and take due account of other coastal initiatives. Shoreline management plans combine with the work of local planning authorities with a view to avoiding problems in the future by discouraging inappropriate development. The plans are intended to be a living document, and will need to be reviewed at regular intervals. Indeed, a timetable for review should be included in the plans. That approach enables evolving knowledge of physical processes, environmental issues and land use to be drawn into the planning process.
It is important to recognise that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations in this country, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence. Coastlines recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide. It is therefore unrealistic to expect to maintain every inch of coastline as it is now. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman made that point. Instead, authorities must consider a range of options and the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences; there is an issue of cost-benefit analysis and appropriate defence.
Although the Government's commitment to effective coastal defence remains unchanged, the techniques of putting that commitment into practice are constantly evolving and improving. We now have a much better understanding of coastal processes and other conditions on which to base our coastal defence policy. In the past, defences often consisted of concrete sea walls, but experience and research have shown that techniques that preserve natural features, such as beaches and salt marshes, can be more effective in absorbing wave energy. Such approaches also have environmental benefits.
I have spoken so far about the policy guidance that the Ministry provides. It also provides more tangible assistance to maritime councils. In 1993, the Ministry commissioned a coastal protection survey, which examined the extent, adequacy and state of repair of coastal defences, and which I am sure would have included the constituency of the hon. Member for Torbay. That report was published in 1994, and the Ministry has since asked the councils involved to update the results regularly. Their reports are included in our criteria for allocating capital funds.
We also fund a considerable research and development programme to examine the most effective way of predicting and preventing flooding and coastal erosion.
One of the hon. Gentleman's key points related to the resources that are made available for coastal defence. As he rightly said, the Ministry provides grant aid for

flood defence and coastal protection. The schemes that we aid must be technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally sustainable. Funding takes the form of direct grants, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. For local authorities, the Ministry also provides approvals to enable them to borrow the balance of the cost of approved schemes net of grant. In the past two years, the Ministry has paid almost –60 million in direct grants for coastal protection schemes.
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there is an ever-increasing demand for MAFF funding, particularly for coastal and flood defence, so we introduced a priority scoring system in June 1997 on a pilot basis, with a view to optimising the allocation of available funds. If there is only a finite amount of money, it is understandable that schemes with the highest priority and the greatest need should take precedence. Those scores take into account criteria such as urgency and the cost-benefit ratio, which tend to favour urban areas because of the value of the property that will be protected by any expenditure on coastal schemes.
Under this Government, sites of environmental importance have been identified and included in the priority scoring system for the first time. We recognise the emphasis placed on the protection of life, and hence on those parts of the country where many people live and work. The priorities in the scoring system are, in descending order, flood warning; urban coastal and tidal defences, which meets the hon. Gentleman's point; urban flood defences and environmental assets of international importance; rural coastal and tidal defences, existing rural flood defences and drainage works, and environmental assets of national significance; and new rural flood defence works, and environmental assets of local significance.
During the past year, all Government Departments, including MAFF, have been conducting a comprehensive spending review of their spending programmes. As part of that CSR, we have established a working group specifically to consider flood and coastal defence issues. That group has included a representative from the coastal protection authorities—from local government—and it has produced a thought-provoking report covering the key issues relating to flood and coastal defence. We shall consider that report and others, and announce the decisions on the CSR later this summer, including the decision on the level of future funding.
The review will have to take account of the many competing priorities, but the need for expenditure on flood and coastal defence, whose importance we are aware of, will be very carefully considered.
As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the Select Committee on Agriculture is currently engaged in an inquiry into flood and coastal defence. We await its report with interest; that will be a very important contribution to the debate.
I shall now discuss the Bellwin scheme. The effects of coastal erosion can result in expenditure falling on local authorities; they are expected to budget accordingly. Where it seems to the Government that an undue financial burden would fall on local authorities as a result of taking action following an emergency that involves destruction


of, or danger to, life or property, it is possible for grant to be paid on qualifying expenditure under the so-called Bellwin scheme. The scheme is administered by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The Bellwin scheme can be activated when emergency works are necessary that will impose undue financial burdens on the local authorities concerned. Most recently, that scheme was implemented following the Easter flooding.

Mr. Sanders: The problem with the Bellwin scheme is that it does not take account of the drip, drip, drip effect of erosion. Grants are available only when an emergency occurs, as a result of natural phenomena or a surprise flood or storm. A rock fall due to general wear and tear does not entitle the local authority to a grant under the Bellwin scheme, and the local authority concerned does not have the resources to put things right.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I reiterate that the Bellwin scheme exists for emergencies and for unforeseen expenditure. Routine coastal defence, which is planned and predicted, comes under the normal funding arrangements and the normal bids of local councils.
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said on the standard spending assessment issue. The SSA system is being reviewed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I am sure that the review will address the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, which I know are of concern to local authorities. Unfortunately, I suspect that the review will take some time because of its complexity.
In the meantime, I reiterate that the Bellwin scheme exists for unforeseen emergencies, and that it is not really relevant to normal planning in relation to shoreline management plans and coastal defence provision. Local authorities are aware of that. They do plan ahead for, and they do submit bids to MAFF in relation to, capital expenditure. They also have their SSA in relation to coastal erosion.
The hon. Gentleman has made some very important points. I hope that I have answered his questions. If he would like me to expand on any points, if he cares to write to me I shall be only too pleased to do so. Naturally, local authorities want more expenditure on those issues. A finite sum of money is available. We do need priorities, and I believe that the priority scoring system that we have addresses the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.